Month: October 2018

For Halloween – “The Climate Mash’

For Halloween – “The Climate Mash’

For years, climate crusaders have trying to scare humanity, and the scare tactics have mostly fallen flat. Few listen anymore because doom and gloom just doesn’t sell, unless you are selling Halloween costumes. This video is from 2005, after Hurricane Katrina hit. The description says:

“Bobby Boris Pickett takes a political stance against global warming, and sticks it to the Bush administration.”

For your amusement, I present the “Climate Mash” as parody, from the original “Monster Mash”

 

Here is the original, From American Bandstand. October 13, 1964. Bobby “Boris” Pickett.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2OYRVhr

October 31, 2018 at 06:25PM

IEA Opposed To Cheap Energy For Developing Nations

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Robin Guenier

 

Once again, the IEA is trying to stir things up re “fossil fuel subsidies”:

 

image

Worldwide fossil fuel consumption subsidies almost halved between 2012 and 2016, from a high point in 2012 of more than half a trillion dollars. But the estimate crept higher again in 2017, according to new data from World Energy Outlook 2018, and the run-up in the oil price in 2018 is putting pricing reforms under pressure in some countries.

The new data for 2017 show a 12% increase in the estimated value of these subsidies, to more than $300 billion. Most of the increase relates to oil products, reflecting the higher price for oil (which, if an artificially low end-user price remains the same, increases the estimated value of the subsidy). In 2016, for the first time, the value of subsidies to fossil-fuelled electricity were higher than for oil. The 2017 data sees oil return as the most heavily subsidised energy carrier.

image

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies are in place across a range of countries. These subsidies lower the price of fossil fuels, or of fossil-fuel based electricity, to end-consumers, often as a way of pursuing social policies including energy access.

There can be good reasons for governments to make energy more affordable, particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable groups. But many subsidies are poorly targeted, disproportionally benefiting wealthier segments of the population that use much more of the subsidised fuel.

Such untargeted subsidy policies encourage wasteful consumption, pushing up emissions and straining government budgets. Phasing out fossil fuel consumption subsidies is a pillar of sound energy policy.

The period of high oil prices from 2010-2014 provided strong motivation for many oil-importing countries to pursue subsidy reform. The fall in price that began in 2014 presented the opportunity. A host of countries, from India to Indonesia and from Mexico to Malaysia, have implemented pricing reforms in recent years.

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/october/hard-earned-reforms-to-fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-coming-under-threat.html

 

Every time a report like this comes out, Greenpeace and co leap up and down, pretending that taxpayers are actually handing money over to wicked oil companies.

In fact, as the IEA admit, these are “consumer subsidies”, and not “producer subsidies”. The latter are, of course, what we are paying to wind farms in this country, to enable them to compete with fossil fuels.

By contrast, consumer subsidies are given to keep prices down for the consumer, in this case energy, which may or may not come from fossil fuels.

The IEA explain their methodology below:

 

The IEA estimates subsidies to fossil fuels that are consumed directly by end-users or consumed as inputs to electricity generation. The price-gap approach, the most commonly applied methodology for quantifying consumption subsidies, is used for this analysis. It compares average end-user prices paid by consumers with reference prices that correspond to the full cost of supply. The price gap is the amount by which an end-use price falls short of the reference price and its existence indicates the presence of a subsidy.

https://www.iea.org/weo/energysubsidies/

 

My first reaction is just what the hell does any of this have to do with the IEA?

If, for instance, the Indian government wants to subsidise the price of electricity, so that its citizens are able to afford to run air conditioners, then that is up to them, and nobody else.

Similarly, if Iran wants to subsidise natural gas to enable its people to survive in winter, what right does the IEA to criticise?

The Report actually notes that such subsidies can be beneficial, but then ludicrously go on to complain that some richer people might benefit as well:

There can be good reasons for governments to make energy more affordable, particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable groups. But many subsidies are poorly targeted, disproportionally benefiting wealthier segments of the population that use much more of the subsidised fuel.

In reality, energy taxes are one of the most regressive taxes of all. Removal of subsidies would have the same effect.

Subsidising energy for industry is also seen to be important by many countries, who would worry about the loss of competitiveness if they were withdrawn.

 

The IEA, of course, has ulterior motives, and could not give a toss about the wellbeing or livelihoods of ordinary people in developing nations, where all of the subsidies are concentrated. No EU country appears on the list, nor the US, Canada or Australia:

 

 image

https://www.iea.org/weo/energysubsidies/

 

That is because the IEA is set up under the auspices of the OECD, the rich nations club.

Originally the IEA was designed to help countries co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in the supply of oil, such as the crisis of 1973/4.

In theory, its four main areas of focus are:

  • Energy Security: Promoting diversity, efficiency, flexibility and reliability for all fuels and energy sources;
  • Economic Development: Supporting free markets to foster economic growth and eliminate energy poverty;
  • Environmental Awareness: Analysing policy options to offset the impact of energy production and use on the environment, especially for tackling climate change and air pollution; and
  • Engagement Worldwide: Working closely with partner countries, especially major emerging economies, to find solutions to shared energy and environmental concerns.

https://www.iea.org/about/ourmission/ 

However, it no longer seems to care about energy security, fostering economic growth or eliminating energy poverty.

Instead, it appears to have an overarching remit to tackle climate change. If there was any doubt at all about this, check out Fatih Birol’s despair last week at the news that CO2 emissions were continuing to climb.

And as far as he is concerned, developing countries can go to hell.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/2qnERn6

October 31, 2018 at 05:15PM

Young Students Going on Strike to Protest Climate Change Inaction

Miss Jean Lilburne with her class in the Grade One room at Drouin State School, Drouin, Victoria, 1916Miss Jean Lilburne with her class in the Grade One room at Drouin State School, Drouin, Victoria, 1916

Miss Jean Lilburne with her class in the Grade One room at Drouin State School, Drouin, Victoria, 1916. By National Library of Australia from Canberra, Australia [No restrictions], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The SMH has published a letter from students explaining why they have decided to go on strike. But in my opinion this strike action is a symptom of a deeper malaise within the Australian education system.

Why we’re striking from school over climate change inaction

By Harriet O’Shea Carre & Milou Albrecht
31 October 2018 — 11:53pm

It seems ridiculous that children have got to the point where they realise that the adults who are supposed to be in charge aren’t doing enough to protect our futures from dangerous climate change. So, we have decided to strike from school to show them that this simply isn’t good enough.

There are already so many solutions to climate change but our politicians aren’t doing enough to put them in place. Instead, they are approving massive new coal mines, such as Adani’s, that will wreck our future. As children, we are going to be living in this hot world far longer than the adults. This is just not fair.

We feel sorry for the future generations who don’t even get a say in the world that we’re creating, who will have to deal with even more extreme weather, who will never get to see the Great Barrier Reef and other threatened icons and species.

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/national/victoria/why-we-re-striking-from-school-over-climate-change-inaction-20181031-p50d30.html

Remember back when schools were places of education? Nowadays far too many schools in Australia have become places of indoctrination rather than places of learning.

From what I have seen those poor kids have likely had their minds twisted by years of relentless Australian climate propaganda, force fed to them by teachers and other authority figures.

You reap what you sow. The children are simply carrying their educational brainwashing to its logical but false conclusion; what is the point of attending school or doing your homework, if the world is about to end?

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2JtTJJe

October 31, 2018 at 05:07PM

No Mud on My Barnacles

I lived for three years, from 2009 to 2012, in a delightful house just up from Lammermoor Beach with a view across to Great Keppel Island. Lammermoor Beach is part of the Mackay/Capricorn Management Area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Like many of the beaches along north eastern Australia, Lammermoor is aptly described […]

The post No Mud on My Barnacles appeared first on Jennifer Marohasy.

via Jennifer Marohasy

https://ift.tt/2RsEOSy

October 31, 2018 at 04:08PM