From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
Let’s see what the fraudsters at CCN have been up to this week:
Writing in the Los Angeles Times on Monday, Bill McKibben and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr. urged President Joe Biden’s administration to block “a massive fossil fuel buildout” being proposed in Louisiana. The argument they make is worth journalists’ attention, for it highlights a central challenge often overlooked in climate coverage.
It’s indisputably good news that solar, wind, batteries, and other climate-friendly energy sources have been plummeting in cost and gaining market share, because this can reduce demand for fossil fuels. But reducing the supply of fossil fuels is the true measure of successful climate policy, because global temperatures will keep rising until the world stops burning those fossil fuels.
The fossil fuel industry has no intention of letting that happen. ExxonMobil just announced a $60 billion purchase of a rival oil and gas producer, signaling that Exxon plans to sell vast amounts of fossil fuel for decades. The United Arab Emirates is expanding its production capacity by 7.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent, even as Sultan Al Jaber, who heads UAE’s state-owned oil company while also presiding over next month’s COP28 summit, insists that he favors a net-zero future.
The contradiction at the heart of the climate fight, as Paris Agreement architect Christiana Figueres told the recent “Climate Changes Everything” conference, is that climate-friendly technologies are accelerating even as fossil fuel industry intransigence keeps greenhouse gas emissions climbing. This is the contradiction that our reporting needs to spotlight and explain to audiences.
In Louisiana, oil and gas companies want to construct an array of pipelines and terminals to export liquid natural gas. The climate implications are enormous, partly because LNG is as carbon intensive as coal. The proposed CP2 terminal alone would “be responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions annually than the controversial Willow oil drilling project in Alaska” that Biden approved earlier this year, McKibben and Yearwood write, according to analysis by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department cited by the Sierra Club.
Journalists do not have to be in Louisiana to report this story. As Damian Carrington and Matthew Taylor revealed last year in their “carbon bombs” expose for the Guardian, scores of similar climate-busting projects are being proposed or developed all over the world.
Incredibly, governments and public lending agencies are spending trillions of dollars to subsidize such climate-wrecking fossil fuel production. In 2022, they paid out $7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies, the International Monetary Fund calculated. “That’s a definition of insanity,” John Kerry, the US special envoy for climate change, said two years ago in the lead-up to COP26.
As journalists prepare to cover the COP28 summit starting November 30 and elections in the US and elsewhere next year, it’s essential we understand — and help our audiences understand — that fossil fuels have to go, soon, if a livable planet is to be preserved. Questions to explore in your reporting include: How much is your country’s government spending to subsidize fossil fuels? And what is your country doing — or failing to do — to stop burning the fossil fuels that are dangerously overheating the planet?
https://mailchi.mp/coveringclimatenow/subsidizing-ourselves-to-death?e=26b08cfb8d
Instead of questioning why fossil fuels appear to be irreplaceable, the con-merchants at CCN naturally blame it all on fossil fuel subsidies:
$7 trillion ? WOW! – If governments are sending trillions of our money every year, no wonder we keep producing fossil fuels.
Except that John Kerry is not telling you the truth.
Their link to the supposed subsidies offers this insight:
In other words, us poor old taxpayers are not actually paying a penny to all of those wicked Big Oil companies.
On the contrary, they are actually selling us all oil, gas and coal extremely cheaply, much cheaper than the eco-nutters demand.
In fact what the far left extremists at CCN really want is for us all to pay much more for our energy in the name of global warming.
Apparently that’s progress!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The proles know, the proles say NO
We can say No Way Joey to them all we want but, in the end, BRICS aligned countries will continue unabated while continuously demanding Climate Reparations from US. In fact, those same BRICS name sake countries Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa IN 2020 were responsible for 45% of all global emissions.
If you listed them in order from largest contributor
Country . 2020 T . per cap . Global . 2021 T
China 11,680 8.20 32.48% 12,039.80
India 2,412 1.74 6.71% 2,797.20
Russia 1,674 11.64 4.66% 1797.60
Brazil 452 2.11 1.26% 495.80
S Africa 435 7.41 1.21% 427.85
In 2020 BRICS Nations produced more than 45% of global emissions
In 2021 their emissions increased to over 46%
In 2022 their emissions increased over 2021 to nearly 48%
By the end of 2023 their emissions will be almost 50% of global emissions.
BRICS doesn’t care about emissions…they’re Mostly all on the receiving end of Paris Climate Reparations payments or want to see the West Fail and Fall
“It’s indisputably good news that solar, wind, batteries, and other climate-friendly energy sources have been plummeting in cost and gaining market share, because this can reduce demand for fossil fuels.”
Plummeting? It’s their IQs that are plummeting.
Less than 0 ?
😀
I thought they were going for net zero.
That does seem to be the goal.
I just read a story claiming that solar and battery storage costs have dropped by 87%. It does not say from when to when or from what cost to what cost. Nor does it discuss how much of the cost change is really just increases in subsidies. I went on line and found current cost averages for 6 kW solar plus a Tesla Powerwall at ~ $30,000, $20k for solar and $10k for the battery system. That’s pretty much the same cost that I found 10 years ago. I guess, given inflation that $30,000 now is about 30% cheaper than $30,000 10 years ago, but it’s a long way from and 87% decrease.
“The fossil fuel industry has no intention of letting that happen.”
It’s the public – most of it- that has no intention of letting that happen.
Yes, don’t you just love the way these clowns completely ignore the consumer? No business would exist if it didn’t have customers. It’s always the “evil” fossil fuel companies, but never the consumer who needs to run his car or heat his home, have hot water, or simply avail himself of the multitude of products made from gas and oil.
All I have to say is that they (meaning the MSM and governments) have been ignoring the consumer at their peril…
Also the way that they assume the 80% of the worlds population that don’t live in comfortable, Western, developed economies should share their myopic view that they should forego the benefits of fossil fuels despite of their need to drag billions out of poverty.
These clowns completely ignore the general public. They are authoritarian control freaks that think they rule us better than we can determine our own path.
Generally speaking, they wish to have less population so we are easier to control.
In short, a cold, hungry populace without the means to defend themselves (gun control) will be more pliable for them to mold into a compliant proletariat.
They believe they are the incarnation of Plato’s guardians. And Plato’s Republic wasn’t.
Those on the left have been indoctrinated into the belief that all private businesses are evil.
Profit is evil, they should be giving that money to the workers instead of keeping it for themselves.
They actually believe that only government cares for them, after all, government is nothing more than the people acting collectively. So government would never, ever, do something that harmed society.
/Sarc
Sounds like they expect the oil companies to just close down and tell their customers “sorry, no more gas for your vehicles, like ambulances and fire engines”.
And it’s absolutely nuts that they label something as subsidized if it doesn’t have a big enough carbon tax on it! All developed countries tax gasoline to death even in the US (in Canada we dig up the body and beat it some more). But that’s not good enough, not “efficiently priced” to compensate for imaginary global catastrophe or even just the nice gentle warming we were lucky to have this past half century.
The countries owe the fossil fuel companies a climate improvement credit!!!
“Incredibly, governments and public lending agencies are spending trillions of dollars to subsidize such climate-wrecking fossil fuel production. In 2022, they paid out $7 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies …”
I downloaded the paper at that link and see:
Not convincing at all. Those are NOT subsidies. Externalities exist for all industries- especially for wind and solar industries- where subsidies are direct, yet the externalities are ignored. And, how could any far lefty ever appreciate the meaing of pricing anything correctly? How about the cost for all of us to support burreacracies and academics who benefit greatly from powerful labor unions? How about paying them the minimum it would take to find someone to fill THEIR jobs?
I like that “road congestion” one, as if switching to electric cars would get rid of that (ignoring the fact that they are too expensive and so if forced to switch, a lot of people will be forced to bus it.)
McKibben and Yearwood are clearly mental defectives who need to be locked up for the safety of general public.
I hope to outlast that SOB McKibben. Unfortunately, he’s not looking too healthy.
He’s an English lit major at Hah-vid. I’ve read most of his books. Not only bad science but his writing is barely high school level. He debated Alex Epstein several years ago- it’s on YouTube. Alex mopped the floor with him.
Yahoo! for “fossil fuel industry intransigence”. I put some of that intransigence in my gas tank on a regular basis.
Still a bargain at twice the cost considering the alternative.
These people and CCN are truly delusional. ‘Renewable costs plummeting’—NOT!
Mining coal in the Powder River Basin has made any number of people very wealthy. It has sent revenues and taxes to the Federal government, returned royalties and taxes to the states of Wyoming and Montana. Employeed lots of people at those good payin’ jobs that Joe Biden mumbles about. But the most important point to be made is that PRB coal was and is burned at power plants across half of the U.S. and has been so cheap to mine that it has help hold down power prices for five decades freeing up money for other endeavors. It’s currently $0.82 per mmbtu — one-third the price of natural gas on an energy basis.
All the environmentalists and lefties at place like Center for American Progress can talk about is the government is selling that coal too cheap — hence subsidies! This from the people who never find a subsidy they don’t like for their loser causes.
Coal is just old trees nature compressed and heated for easier storage.
A veritable black forest already somewhat dried to be burned.
If there were no demand for fossil fuels, there would be no need for a supply. Unfortunately for these blokes, they have not yet created a viable replacement for fossil fuels. And, as they’ve admitted, demand leads to more supply.
Very first sentence in the Los Angeles Times article, authored by Bill McKibben and Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., as quoted in the above article:
“It’s indisputably good news that solar, wind, batteries, and other climate-friendly energy sources have been plummeting in cost and gaining market share, because this can reduce demand for fossil fuels.”
I literally and honestly stopped reading the article right then and there.
I don’t have difficulty recognizing pure BS when I see . . . but obviously the LA Times does.
efficient fuel prices to reflect supply and environmental costs
That’s a mighty new definition of efficiency.
But I suppose they use the same measure when calculating the cost of wind turbines, such as the 16 million trees destroyed in Scotland.
Don’t forget all the birds that used to roost in those trees as well!
That externality can be estimated by natural resource economists but they don’t seem interested. The losses include:
What a pair of maroons!
These idiots are probably very concerned about the “subsidies” I received when I purchased my SUV, pickup and ammo. If they ever try to confiscate the SUV and PU, they’ll end up more than concerned about the latter!
From allowing millions of unknown unvetted illegal “climate change migrants” into our countries to this sort of delusional economic illiteracy ; just a matter of time now till something really bad happens. The stage is set for some nefarious group or nation state to really hurt us.
How much more could any group or nation state hurt us than the political and bureaucratic elites in Washington are already!?
It’s one big multi faceted F .&#% beyond all recognition.
In the WW2 movies there is always that one character that just just decides there is no way he is going to make it through the war so “ so he just decides to go for it, be fearless, make the best of every day even in war no matter how bad the sit looks. We have it a lot better ( so far) than that guy. So that’s going to be my new mantra “ just f%#&. It. And f&$#% em.
Here in Wokeachusetts and probably many other areas- the MSM never refers to “illegal immigrants” but merely to migrants or economic migrants or the like. Ticks me off. It’s very expensive to live here. There are few blue collar jobs and even fewer jobs in agriculture. Most of these illegal immigrants are uneducated- can’t speak English. So why move here? Why not go to states and regions where they might be able to find work? Many cities/towns in this state are “sanctuary cities” which of course is an invitation to come here. Our governor Healy is a big supporter of sanctuary cities- but now that some communities are overwhelmed with those immigrants and complain about a housing crisis- the governor also now wonders why we have a housing crisis. Lots of money here and few places to build more homes are left after large areas are in state forests and we have very restrictive zoning. So this is good for the hotels and motels as the state pays to house these folks. It’s crazy, yet the media, all of it, won’t say the obvious solution- stop inviting illegals here and kick them out! Now, anything published by the state- and many institutions like insurance companies, must be written in a few dozen languages!
When the opening sentence is an easily disprovable lie, is there really any reason to read the rest of it?
$7 trillion in subsidies?
Every time this lie is told the number gets more ridiculous.
Yeah, $7 trillion used to be a lot of money.
“The argument they make is worth journalists’ attention, for it highlights a central challenge often overlooked in climate coverage.”
Yes. Not overlooking the lies told would be a good start.
“It’s indisputably good news that solar, wind, batteries, and other climate-friendly energy sources have been plummeting in cost….”
Oh dear. There went my hope for a good start.
Boy, I am really glad this article is here. I could never figure out how the CAGW crowd could claim fossil fuels receive such exorbitant subsidies. This really helps.
The article claims wind, solar and storage costs are dropping and becoming cheaper at an increasing rate. That isn’t true. They also claim that fossil fuels receive trillions of dollars in subsidies. That isn’t true.
For the sake of argument let’s assume both are true. Since renewables have become so cheap they should give up all subsidies, tax preferences and regulatory advantages. By doing this they can prove once and for all that renewables are the superior energy provider and don’t need to leach off society like fossil fuel. This is your opportunity to show us how superior renewables are.
Go ahead, I double dog dare you.
I hope this is a lie: “Sultan Al Jaber, who heads UAE’s state-owned oil company while also presiding over next month’s COP28 summit, insists that he favors a net-zero future“. Just about everything else the Bill McKibben and Lennox Yarwood ilk say is a lie, so it probably is.
My open message to Sultan Al Jaber is that he has the opportunity at COP28 to stand up for the ordinary people of the world and call out the climate alarmists’ destructive hypocrisy. He would have a lot more support than he maybe thinks.