Let’s hope climate talks finally come to grips with energy, scientific and economic reality
“Show us the money!” climate activists demand, and rich countries are expected to pony up.
Do I hear $100 billion? Would you give $1 trillion? Now, then, would you give $2 trillion?
The climate reparations bidding war is on. What began at $100-billion-a-year at COP-21 in Paris rapidly ballooned to $1.3-trillion on the eve of COP-27 in Sharm-el-Sheikh-Down, Egypt and now stands at $2.4-trillion annually! And we’re nowhere near “going once, going twice, sold.”
Of course, it was always about the money – endless sums of cash supposedly to help developing countries (like China!) adapt to dangerous manmade climate change, cover entire regions with wind and solar, and secure “fair, just and equitable” reparations for soaring temperatures, rising seas, destructive storms, floods, droughts and famines allegedly caused by countries that have used fossil fuels since 1850.
Yes, China. The Middle Kingdom has long postured itself as a developing country, when it comes to when it might start building fewer coal-fired power plants and slowly shift to “renewable” energy.
Now China says it will pay non-cash climate reparations, if the United States pays in dollars. Of course, any US, UK, German, et cetera “fair share” would be exorbitant – and paid while they “transition” rapidly away from fossil fuels, regardless of the economic, social and ecological costs.
As Oliver Hardy would say, “Another fine mess you’ve gotten me into,” Joe, John and the rest of Team Biden’s climate-obsessed, fossil-fuel-eradicating, eco-justice warriors.
They and their activist, media and academia allies created the climate scare – the assertion that fossil fuel emissions alone are driving today’s climate and weather. Never mind that, since the last Pleistocene ice age, average global temperatures climbed significantly (Baruch Hashem); sea levels rose some 400 feet; and floods, droughts, hurricanes and other disasters ravaged planet and humanity countless times. Anything happening today, however, is due to countries that got rich using fossil fuels. Or so they insist.
Therefore, naturally, COP-27 organizers, activists and attendees now say the “climate crisis” requires enormous payments from rich countries to poor countries – or more accurately, from poor people in rich countries to rich kleptocrats in poor countries. That raises another inconvenient truth.
Not long ago, Obama “science advisor” John Holdren intoned: “Only one rational path is open to us – simultaneous de-development of the [United States and other over-developed countries] and semi-development of the under-developed countries, in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between.” This de-development ideology is shared by many others.
Well, de-development and de-industrialization are already underway in Britain, Germany and elsewhere, because wind, solar and battery (WSB) energy cannot possibly replace abundant, reliable, affordable, non-weather-dependent fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Jobs, companies and entire industries are already disappearing across Europe, as it destroys fossil fuel power plants but has nothing viable to replace them.
So how are all these de-developing Formerly Rich Countries (FRCs) going to deliver billions or trillions annually, to pay climate reparations and help poor countries develop? They cannot possibly do so.
Even worse, eco-imperialist developed countries continue demanding that poor countries develop only to the minimal extent that WSB technologies would permit. Rich countries, the World Bank and global financial institutions refuse to finance anything but pseudo-renewable energy.
These unconscionable policies perpetuate joblessness, poverty, disease and death – and advance the other basic goal of “climate stabilization” programs: controlling our lives and living standards. But poor nations have inalienable, God-given rights to develop, using fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power – and petroleum as feed stocks for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and hundreds of other miraculous life-enhancing, life-saving products (developed by countries that are now expected to pay reparations).
Developed nations must help developing nations reach those goals. Instead, they too often block pathways to better lives. Still more outrageous, the USA and Europe have the nerve to ask African, Asian and Latin American nations to produce more oil and gas, but only for export to the USA and Europe!
Meanwhile, Britain is setting up “warm rooms,” where people can go for a few hours a day, instead of freezing hungry and jobless in dark apartments. It’s as though Merry Old England has suddenly been transported back to the Middle Ages, by politicians who put climate virtue signaling above their constituents’ basic needs.
Meanwhile, Germany is dismantling an industrial wind power installation – so that it can extract the lignite coal underneath, to run generating plants, to keep factories operating and homes warm!
Even crazier, these are just a few examples of the insanity gripping the world’s political classes, especially during Conferences of Parties (COPs) on climate change. Happily, escaping this insane asylum requires little more than recognizing a few simple realities.
* The vast majority of nations signed the Paris climate treaty for the money – most of which they are now beginning to realize they will never receive. Moreover, coal, oil and natural gas still provide 82% of the world’s energy; nuclear, hydroelectric and biomass (wood and dung) provide most remaining energy needs, and less than 2% comes from wind and solar.
* Developing countries will be using fossil fuels for decades to come – and emitting more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in the process – much of it to extract the raw materials and manufacture the “green tech” they will export to the US, UK, EU and other soon-to-be-FRCs. So even if developed countries totally eliminated their fossil fuel use, atmospheric greenhouse gas levels will continue to climb.
* But that won’t matter, because there is no evidence that we face a climate crisis, much less a manmade climate crisis, much less changes unprecedented in Earth or human history. Humans are likely affecting temperature, humidity, climate and weather to some degree, especially around large urban “heat islands.” But that is a far cry from cataclysms allegedly resulting from fossil fuels replacing the powerful natural forces that have controlled climate and weather throughout history.
* The 1.5 degrees C that we are supposed to avoid to avert catastrophe is arbitrary, meaningless – and tied not just to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but to the end of the Little Ice Age. Another degree or two of warming would be mostly beneficial, whereas another little or big ice age would devastate agriculture, habitats, wildlife and humanity.
* The entire climate crisis agenda is based on computer models that (a) cannot possibly reflect all the forces that govern climate, and (b) consistently predict planetary warming that is two to three times greater than actually recorded by satellites, weather balloons and surface temperature monitors.
* Basing economy-destroying, life-altering policies on useless models is sheer insanity – especially if the replacement energy comes from WSB systems that would require mining, processing, manufacturing and installations on scales that would ravage our planet.
The only reason these realities are so little known is that climate activists, politicians, academics, and news and social media studiously demonize, harass, censor, silence, deplatform and demonetize scientists, economists and energy experts who challenge climate crisis narratives.
Thankfully, the Truth is slowly winning out. Perhaps COP-27 will bring a healthy dose of climate and energy sanity. If it doesn’t, we could end up with John Holdren’s formula for rolling back development and living standards. Just don’t expect the ruling elites and their Hollywood and Big Tech allies to lead by example.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.
You are not up with the new spelling. It is now Sham el Sheik.
I thought it was being run by Sheik Yabootie.
Sheikh Yemani-Maker, more like.
I thought the latest Alarmist venue was now, Shame et Shriek.
A very good summary of the paranoia that the greens ,Greenpeace and so many politician’s and the news media are preaching .
I hope that you are right when you say that the truth is slowly winning out .
It would take a miracle to change the direction that the COP meetings have been taking .
Zero Carbon is unnecessary and will end up crippling many countries.
Affordable energy should be every person right in every country in the world .
The people pushing these crazy policies have no idea how any countries economy’s work.
There will be 8 Billion on this planet by the end of this month and they all need food shelter and clothing for a start .
I have said this before nitrogenous fertilizer which has to be manufactured with natural gas ,is essential to grow the food to feed 4 Billion of these people .
I am quite convinced that if the delegates at COP27 were sincere about their concerns that rising GHGs were going to cause problems they they would be working towards Nuclear power.
Nuclear will hardly get a mention so that is proof that there is another agenda .
One world government .
If there is one brain amongst the delegates they could see that zero carbon can only lead to world poverty and famine.
“going once, going twice, sold.”
You missed “down the river” after “sold”
Chris Mitchell summed it all up superbly in The Australian headed-
Journalists blind to facts as climate pantomime rolls on
1.5 target may be softened following COP 27 according to BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63617400
How about removing an unrealistic, unnecessary, unachievable target all together?
I’d settle for about 10 in the winter, except at the ski resorts where cold is fine.
Winter is here already early.
How about moving to Camelot?
It’s only a model!
I do hope you’re sitting down:
******NASA gets something right******
(You can get back up now, they get it totally wrong, via Hubris, yet still 100% correct)
Quote:”We have not met alien life because intelligent societies tend to wipe themselves out, scientists have claimed – and the human race could be next.
Something along the lines of what Einstein said about ‘infinite’ ‘human’ ‘universe’ and ‘stupidity’ is it not?
The stupidity is perfectly exemplified, in fact they hammer in The Final Nail, by their inclusion of the word ‘intelligent‘ in the above quote:
Peta suggests: Surely Shirley, ‘intelligent‘ lifeforms wouldn’t extinguish themselves
Links at various places, here’s one
“intelligent societies tend to wipe themselves out”
Pure conjecture, guesswork even. Who said life must even be Carbon based?
Yeah, it seems like first one has to be found. On your second point, an argument could be made for silicon, and it makes sense that there could then be carbon based boobs, like Gore.
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” – Hitchen’s Razor
That NASA would engage in such naked speculation and claim it is somehow science based is just more disturbing evidence of how much scientific integrity has declined over decades of government control. Eisenhower warned us. Nobody listened.
“******NASA gets something right******”
Someone’s getting fired.
Good report by Paul, as usual. What I don’t understand is why there aren’t enough rational persons on the Greenie side that they want to see comparisons of mitigation versus adaption, anthropogenic versus natural increases of atmospheric CO2, net effects of CO2 greening earth (enhanced crops), building nuclear reactors versus paying for battery storage, and CO2 levels heading into the next glacial cycle of the Ice Age we live in. The only currently interpretation of this is that there are now more irrational persons on the planet than rational ones (or corrupt, or scheming for power, or wealth redistribution, or…).
Of course, another possibility is that all those Greenies are like our New Zealand Climate Minister James Shaw – too thick to understand the science, especially if it disagrees with their natural preferences.
The demand that developed nations take responsibility for historic emissions misses a key point: who were the beneficiaries of the products that generated those emissions?
For much of the industrial period we were the “workshop of the world”, much as China is today. In the same way as we now look at “imported emissions”, all those countries that took our exports should accept that the associated emissions belong on their own account.
Another key point is there is no evidence historic human CO2 emissions have caused anyone any damage.
Quite the contrary. Historic (AND present) human CO2 emissions have caused gargantuan BENEFITS.
It is the efforts to REDUCE human emissions that WILL cause UNIMAGINABLE damage.
What started out as a documented half page U.N. resolution numbered 43/53 titled “Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind” circa 1988, has morphed into a global deep green ecological religion.
CoPs remind me of the Carpet Crawlers (Genesis)
The crawlers cover the floor
In the red ochre corridor
For my second sight of ‘alarmists’
They’ve more lifeblood than before
They’re moving in time
To a heavy wooden door
Where the needle’s eye is winking
Closing on the poor
Ah yes, the poor; what would they do without them?…
BBC Defends Special People Flying Private Jets – WUWT
These people are dangerous, the rigour of previous generations in science and engineering seems lacking thanks to the switch from education to indoctrination [and correct-thought]:
“Do we need to stop flying to save the planet? We ask an expert
I asked Professor Pericles Pilidis from the Centre for Propulsion Engineering at Cranfield University whether the promise of hydrogen planes could keep our holiday hopes alive.
Is that the one that had its successful maiden voyage in 2020, but then crashed in 2021?
No, this one doesn’t exist yet but is based on detailed analysis.”
So how long until hydrogen can give us guilt-free wings?
I’d say 10 years. The problem is that hydrogen costs three to four times the price of conventional fuels.”
This is going to be the longest dawn[ing] evah. Then whatever a penny is worth will surely drop?
Bolt talks sanity with Lomborg-
Change of seasons in Adelaide so we copped a big blow on Saturday arvo bringing down trees on power lines so we’re getting a taste of blackouts again as they struggle to clean up and get all the lines fixed-
Might help the fantasy of renewables and electrifying transport sink in although greenouts in summer heat waves will do it better. Prompted me to fire up the portable genny and all sweet and ready.
Should be a way to keep all the cop 27 attendees at the resort until their prognostications bear fruit. Like grounding all their transportations. That would be just wonderful, in my humble opinion.
Hey, they’ve got nothing better to do than think up new ways to make the rest of us, somewhat sane folks, pay for their obvious over-the-top vacations to comfortable spots on the planet, they should be more than willing to stay there while their crap comes true. Right?
Then cut off the supply lines to that place and see how long before they are at each other’s throats. Should be interesting.
We are de-vo!
Rise of the Pond Scum
Don’t forget the ever popular truth spoken by Christina F:
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole”.
Welcome to the Hotel Conyoufornia.
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
How’s about if they want reparations, they give up the agricultural revolution which feeds them, and the technology which lengthens their lives, and we call it even?
Altogether in time…row row row your boat-
I have mentioned this previously. The statement of 82% of world’s energy being supplied by fossil fuels, as mentioned in this article, is based on BP’s controversial ‘input equivalent basis’ energy calculation. This exaggerates the usage of non-fossil fuels by around 2.5 fold and makes mankind seem more profligate than he is. The actual level of energy supplied by fossil fuels is 92%.
World Primary Energy: Consumption by fuel 2021 (Page 9 of 2022 BP pdf)
shows the total energy used in exajoules as being 595.15 using the BP methodology.
However, if we multiply the non-fossil sources by 0.406 (assumed thermal efficiency of a power plant in 2021) we get just 532.49 exajoules
(Quoting directly from the BP publication):
Traditionally, in bp’s Statistical Review of World Energy, the primary energy of non-fossil based electricity (nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass in power and other renewables sources) has been calculated on an ‘input-equivalent’ basis – i.e. based on the equivalent amount of fossil fuel input required to generate that amount of electricity in a standard thermal power plant. For example, if nuclear power output for a country was 100 TWh, and the efficiency of a standard thermal power plant was 38%, the input equivalent primary energy would be 100/0.38 = 263 TWh or
about 0.95 EJ.” (NB: pg 56 of this BP document uses a 40.6% efficiency factor for 2021).
This means that we are all going to have to work 2 and a half times harder to reach the green utopia of 100% non-fossil fuelled energy
The omnipresent lies media pushes on people has them convinced that absurd nonsense is empirical reality. Real world data is dismissed as misinformation or conspiracy idealization by the brainwashed.
Humans can be way too easily programmed by what they expose themselves to. The closed loops of perception modern propaganda creates is the greatest threat to liberty the world has ever seen.
A nice recap of alarmist insanity.
Developing countries always launch their own space stations and have ICBM nuclear weapons
Excuse me, but I am having trouble tracking down all the $$$ that were promised by the “developed” countries to the warlords and crooks in the energy poor countries.
Guess I can do a lotta Googling, but this site might be quicker. Can private message me if new membership allows.
The truth about the EV revolution amidst all the cow farter outpourings-
Wuling minis for the masses my ass and your mung beans too Greenies!
Doesn’t matter how “exciting” they are when it takes 30 – 45 minutes to recharge after exhaustion of the already inadequate range.
Nor will it matter how “exciting” they are when people begin to see more examples of them self-igniting and burning down the garage, house, etc. AND when people see how that effects the insurance rates for them.
Nor will it matter how “exciting” they are as any increase in demand pushes their already high prices to “unaffordable,” even for those dumb enough or deluded enough to want to replace their superior ICE car with an inferior BEV car.
No one should lose too much sleep over these climate conferences because it’s been shown that since the first COP in 1995, there has been a slight warming to the planet, while production and consumption of fossil fuels has either risen or remained mainly at the same level. So who’s actually doing anything to meet the goals and demands of the conference attendees who are probably perfectly aware that they’re accomplishing nothing. But when they get all-expense-paid trips to these meetings (by air, of course, regardless of emissions), stay in top-grade accommodations, and eat better than 90% of the world’s population, why pass up another gabfest even if they’re perfectly aware they could achieve just as much (or little) by teleconferencing.