Month: September 2024

The Education Policy That Makes a Difference Is Not the One You Think

The Education Policy That Makes a Difference Is Not the One You Think
kriszti

Kids’ educational test scores are a major cause for concern across the world. Learning plummeted nearly everywhere during the COVID-19 pandemic—but even before that, standardized test result measures in mathematics, science and reading were heading in the wrong direction.

Category

Articles
Education
Inequality
Innovation & technology
Development
English

Published by Newsweek

https://www.newsweek.com/education-policy-that-makes-difference-not-one-you-thi…
Read the full article

via Lomborg

https://ift.tt/xCMho8L

September 24, 2024 at 04:42AM

Scrap law making schools serve meat, urges Labour donor (Who Owns A Vegan Food Company!)

By Paul Homewood

 

 image

Major Labour donor Dale Vince says he wants to talk to the new government about scrapping compulsory meat and dairy in school meals in England.

The green entrepreneur, who has donated more than £5m to Labour, says vegan meals are healthier and better for the environment.

He is campaigning for an end to all farming of animals, which he says is now the biggest driver of the climate crisis.

He told a fringe meeting at Labour’s conference that his company, Devil’s Kitchen, already supplies vegan food to "one in four" primary schools.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crejwrypryyo

.

Dale Vince has already made a fortune out of government subsidies for his wind farms. In 2022/23 alone he was given an estimated £9 million.

Having donated £5m of that to the Labour Party, he is now wanting them to introduce vegan meals in schools so that his company can make more money.

I don’t know who is sleazier – him or Free Gear Kier!

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/eqdHNhm

September 24, 2024 at 04:12AM

The U.S.-Canada Energy Relationship Is Underappreciated – And May Now Be Under Threat

By Dan ByersMichael Gullo

September 18, 2024

“Senators, Calgary is a lot closer to Washington than Riyadh. And you don’t need the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet to patrol the Great Lakes.”   So said then-Alberta Premier Jason Kenney at a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee hearing in May of 2022, just a few months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine thrust energy security back into the spotlight.   

While global markets have calmed since the 2022 energy crisis, geopolitical tensions have worsened, there is war in Europe and the Middle East, and economic nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. Uncertainty reigns, which makes the North American energy alliance Premier Kenney championed all the more important. However, a sector-by-sector cap-and-trade system designed to meet Canada’s ambitious economy-wide 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) goals is threatening this increasingly important partnership.   

While it should go without saying that U.S.-Canadian energy trade is critical to each country’s energy security and economic prosperity, Canada’s role in responding to U.S. demand with a safe and secure supply of affordable energy is often overlooked or poorly understood by policymakers.  

Even though the U.S. is the world’s largest oil and gas producer, it increasingly relies on its northern neighbor to supply refineries with much-needed heavy crude oil and keep power flowing to households and industry. In fact, growth in Canadian imports is an important factor driving America’s reduced reliance on OPEC countries, as the country now accounts for more than 50% of U.S. petroleum imports. Meanwhile, virtually all natural gas coming into the U.S. comes from Canada, and it is also America’s primary supplier of electricity and important minerals such as uranium. In total, two-way energy trade of oil, natural gas, electricity and uranium reached a record total in 2023 of $156 billion USD.   

This energy security partnership must not be taken for granted. Potential serious disruptions loom, especially if Canada’s intentions to impose a cap on the emissions produced by its upstream oil and gas sector go forward as envisioned.  While Canada’s emissions cap does not directly constrain energy production, it will do so as a practical matter, because the substantial costs and long lead times required to approve and deploy emissions-reducing technologies to power oil and gas operations (such as carbon capture and storage (CCS), waste heat recovery systems, and small modular reactors) leave industry with no other options.   

This could force Canadian producers to curtail operations as a compliance measure. Estimates suggest that curtailment could range from 626,000 to as much as 2,000,000 barrels per day—amounts equivalent to 16 – 52% of U.S. imports of Canadian crude oil.  Similarly, natural gas producers would need to reduce production by approximately 2.2 billion cubic feet per day, or roughly 76% of imports to the U.S. All this at a time when energy demand is rising, and power sector dependence on natural gas grows in response to coal retirements, transportation electrification, and data center expansion. 

Put simply, the de facto production caps under consideration by the Canadian government threaten to severely restrict cross-border energy trade in a way that harms our shared economic and security interests. They should not go forward as proposed, but that does not mean industry opposes ambitious action on emissions. To the contrary, energy companies on both sides of the border are investing billions of dollars on the transition to a cleaner energy future. Progress abounds  in both the U.S. and Canada, from investments in multi-billion dollar CCS projects and alternative fuels such as renewable natural gas to clean hydrogen production and world-leading actions to reduce methane throughout the oil and gas value chain. This commitment is unwavering, and promises to enhance North American energy security while meeting international demand for our (lower-GHG-footprint) exports.  

Policymakers should seek to strengthen cross-border collaboration on energy security, infrastructure, climate change policy, harmonized standards and development and deployment of key clean energy technologies. This coordination should recognize and protect the fundamental role each country plays in enhancing North American prosperity, meeting global demand and building resilient energy supply chains. Taking this broader view should also consider the increasingly important and integrated role both countries play in providing a safe, secure and clean supply of energy to overseas markets and NATO allies.  

Together, Canada and the U.S. have dominated global oil and growth in the past decade, creating an energy secure North America while driving billions into innovation and technologies designed to lower emissions. Policy actions that limit production and export capacity could reverse this progress, leaving us and our allies more vulnerable. We must instead leverage our deeply interconnected energy systems and rock-solid commercial relationships in support of a North American Energy Security framework that will deliver benefits for decades to come. Our organizations and collective membership stand ready to be a fully committed partner in this effort. 

Dan Byers is Vice President of Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute.  

Michael Gullo is Vice President of Policy at the Business Council of Canada.  

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/jcVfhgL

September 24, 2024 at 04:02AM

Critique of Time mag’s suggested link of ‘climate change’ to recent flooding in Europe 


The hunt is on for weather trends supposedly pointing to human causes. But the most obvious trend is the one towards dashing off a quick ‘study’, via a modelling exercise, claiming that a very recent bad weather event somewhere was made worse by ‘climate change’. By definition a single event can’t be a trend, as a professor quoted here acknowledges. Flooding in parts of central Europe is known to have been going on for centuries at least, while occupation or use of land close to flood-prone areas has often increased.
– – –
Time magazine recently posted an article, titled “Is Climate Change Causing the Deadly Floods in Europe?” that, while providing some balance, still asserts that the recent flooding in Poland and other parts of Europe reflects a broader worsening pattern caused by climate change.

This is false, says Climate Realism.

There is no indication in the data showing a ‘pattern’ of increasing flood severity or incidence.

Time admits that it’s “difficult to draw a conclusive link between this event and climate change,” but then says “experts say the most severe floods to hit the region in at least two decades fit into a broader pattern of extreme weather events.”

Later, Time quotes a professor from the University of Bristol who recommends attribution studies to determine whether or not the flooding is caused by climate change:

“It’s really difficult to relate a single event to climate change impact,” says Paul Bates, a professor of hydrology at the University of Bristol who specializes in the science of flooding. Bates says that in order to definitively prove whether or not climate change contributed to the flooding in Europe, researchers will need to conduct an attribution study, which takes at least several weeks.

“Every time we do an attribution study, we tend to find that the events we see have been exacerbated by climate change, and I’m pretty sure that will be the case here, but we don’t yet conclusively know,” says Bates.

Several weeks for a peer reviewed study, that would be amazingly rapid.

As Climate Realism has pointed out before many times, attribution studies are over-trusted by the media and scientists, and are often used more like propaganda than science.

Attribution studies compare unverified, counterfactual models of the Earth’s climate and emissions, assuming ahead of time that any difference between the models is due to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Neither model represents the world as it really is, and the modelers assume the conclusion before it is reached, using the models only to confirm their pre-existing belief. As a result, the models never discover anything other than a human influence on weather events, and almost invariably suggest that human activities likely contributed to each event studied.

While it is true that warmer air holds more water, that does not translate directly to an increase in intense rainfall.

Full article here.
– – –
Image: Danube/Inn flood level marker in Passau, Bavaria

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/BUip5EO

September 24, 2024 at 03:56AM