Energy Cost is Why We Disagree About Climate Policy

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

By withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement President Trump has put the burden of proof on those private investors and nation states which believe that renewable energy is economically beneficial. Far from being a disaster, this is a step towards a reasonable and spontaneously attractive climate change policy.

Like many of those vilified for their views on the subject of climate change, President Trump is more of an energy policy sceptic than an anti-rational “denier” of atmospheric science. He senses, and with good reason, that the aggregate of energy policies proposed to mitigate climate change brings with it the threat of major wealth destruction and a reversal of several centuries of exponential increases in human well-being.

Mr Trump sees this from his own national perspective, believing, again with good reason, that the policies are extremely and comparatively disadvantageous to the United States. However, this narrow view is a subset of and entirely compatible with the broader conclusion that renewable energy policies will be damaging to human prospects at the global level, however much they may favour certain countries in the short term.

Those who disagree with him are, for the most part, either explicitly or implicitly affirming the contrary proposition, namely that the renewable energy transition envisioned is already economic and will bring enhanced global prosperity.

That is the black and white of the matter; you either believe that the low carbon energy policies make sense, or you don’t, and it is this root level division that provides the most profound explanation of why we disagree to any degree about climate change. If there were no differences of opinion about energy, there would be hardly any disagreement about climate change policy.

Furthermore, this account not only explains the fact of the quarrel, but also the haut en bas and moralising tone of Mr Trump’s critics. If you believe that economic, low-emitting renewable energy is already available, then it will also seem to you that only ill-will and stupidity prevents its adoption, and thus that President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is ignorant at best and probably malign.

But his views are neither of these things. The reasoning is certainly elliptical, and the manner is brusque, to say the least, but in the last analysis he simply has a different view about the economic consequences of renewable energy, views that are in fact widely held amongst both specialists and the general public.

The case for renewables is not proven, and in spite of a rolling barrage of positive PR round the industry there are still very good grounds for reserving judgment. Even if the claimed equipment cost reductions are real, and this is extremely dubious in the case of wind power, the economic lifetimes remain deeply uncertain, and the electricity system integration costs for uncontrollable generators are without doubt extremely high. Upbeat babble about electricity storage, smart metering and ingenious demand management cannot conceal the fact that these “solutions” all tend towards increasing the capitalization of the electricity sector, thus greatly reducing its productivity, a clear recipe for higher consumer costs and for deeply unpleasant macroeconomic impacts.

As with many problems in technology and commerce, a resolution to this matter cannot be delivered politically or administratively. It is, to use Easterly’s convenient phrase, not a matter of administrative deployment, but a research question, the answer to which can only be discovered by free experiment and the taking of risks. Indeed, the President’s de facto rejection of state support for alternative energy actually brings this discovery closer. A number of US corporates and other interests are now declaring that they will continue to invest in low carbon technologies in spite of the President’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Fine. Let them do so. If the enthusiasts are right, then renewable technologies will sweep the board through fundamental and real advantage, bringing general benefit. If they are wrong, the lesson will be learned painfully and in full public view but with limited malinvestment.

So in pursuit of truth, let us remove all the deep market coercions that are currently feeding the suspicions of President Trump, amongst others. Delete the portfolio standards, abolish the tax credits and income support subsidies, and make the ‘alternative’ technologies pay their costs on the system and earn their their place in the wholesale markets through normal competition. And by all means do the same for equivalent subsidies to fossil fuels, though green campaigners will be disappointed to find that these are not nearly as common as they think.

Many “Parisians” are now consoling themselves with the thought that a Trump presidency cannot last more than eight years at the most. That is an evasion. The reality to which Mr Trump has given voice is enduring. It can be temporarily suppressed, but it will not go away. The disagreement about energy is not trivial. Cheap energy is the cause of prosperity. Climate policies grounded in anything other than cheap energy will not be sustainable.

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

June 3, 2017 at 11:21PM

Right Wing Of Merkel’s Party Stuns Country: Climate Science “A Sort Of World Rescue Circus”!

via NoTricksZone
http://notrickszone.com

A tsunami of outrage swept across Germany right after President Donald Trump announced dropping out of the Paris Accord (and to not transfer tens of billions of taxpayer money over to the UN each year).

It appears that the President’s bold and courageous move is leading to potentially dangerous pockets energy policy and climate science uprising in Germany.

A reader pointed out something a bit stunning: Germany’s flagship ARD television, the country’s version of the BBC, reported here how a group of conservative politicians from Angela Merkel’s CDU party, known as the Berliner Kreis, has just voiced its strong opposition to the party’s climate and energy policy course.

A group from Angela Merkel’s CDU party recently released its “Climate and Energy Political Demands”, calling for a science and energy policy “without ideology”, an end to “moral extortion”, and an exit out of the “climate saving circus”, pdf here.

According to the ARD report, the group of conservatives is disputing the “‘solitary role’ of the greenhouse effect in global warming’ – and is demanding a change in course in the chancellor’s climate policy“.

The Berliner Kreis, led by Philipp Lengsfeld and Sylvia Pantel, issued an official declaration (German), see pdf here.

“World rescue circus”

The Berliner Kreis declaration demands a return to science “without ideology”, a “fact-based” discussion — one free of “moral extortion” –, and calls a “reform of the IPCC”, which “has not been as scientifically sound as an advising body needs to be”.

The Berliner Kreis declaration adds that the science must not become “a sort of world rescue circus”.

The the Christian conservative group also casts Germany’s CO2 reductions policy into question, noting that so far the country has cut back its CO2 emissions by less than half a billion tonnes while the rest of the plant has increased it by 14 billion tonnes, i.e. 30 times more than what the country has saved.

Germany’s CO2 emissions represent only 2% of the globe’s output, but its energy policy has been 100% pain.

Alinsky-type target?

The Berliner Kreis position has now come in the cross-hairs of major media outlets, setting off a wave of reports, e.g. here, here and here.

It remains to be seen what the real ARD intent of the report was: To show that there is dissent in on the climate topic in Germany and that policy needs to take a step back, or if it is to serve to identify and single out unwanted voices Alinsky style (Rule 13).

Lately the approach used by the media and entrenched establishment in Germany concerning unwanted dissenting voices on sensitive issues – such as Europe, immigration and climate – has followed the labelling formula of: dissent = extremism = Nazi. Many feel intimidated and prefer not to speak up.

What becomes of the Berliner Kreis is a question. Expect Merkel to mobilize forces to shut them up, and down. The Berliner Kreis would be well-advised to quickly forge channels with international dissenting groups. They may be about to find out what the real price of civil courage is.

German publicist Dirk Maxeiner here, who knows first-hand the cost of civil courage, applauds the move by the group of CDU dissenters, commenting (with sarcasm):

A group of CDU parliamentarians that calls itself the “Berliner Kreis” dares to think think for itself on the climate issue. The Tagesschau commentst on this atrocity with the headline: ‘CDU right wingers attack Merkel’ climate course.’ Skepticism, , thought, realism, facts – all right wing.”

via NoTricksZone http://notrickszone.com

June 3, 2017 at 10:02PM

Trump has revealed the dirty secret of the Paris Accord: it is meaningless

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

By Paul Homewood

Booker on Trump this week:

From the howls of dismay and rage prompted across the world by President Trump’s speech on pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Accord, we couldn’t miss that something extraordinary had happened. But it is impossible to grasp its real significance without knowing just how far that Paris agreement has become one of the most dishonestly misrepresented events in recent history.

The reason why the BBC immediately wheeled on someone to describe Trump’s decision as “apocalyptic, paranoid and delusional” was that the President had just stripped away all the spin, pretences and lies that led even that celebrated climate zealot James Hansen to call the agreement at the time a “fake” and a “fraud”.

What was being hoped for in Paris by the world’s climate establishment, led by President Obama, who called it his “legacy”, was a legally binding treaty that would succeed where Kyoto and Copenhagen had so signally failed. It would commit every country to such drastic reductions in its emissions of “polluting” CO2 that this might somehow prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Trump says US to withdraw from Paris climate deal

01:06

To bring on board the developing world, led by two of the top three “polluters”, China and India, a Green Climate Fund was set up, whereby the developed nations would pay them $100 billion every year to “decarbonise” by going for renewable energy.

These people who are now waxing so angry have been looking in the wrong place for what drives the climate all along.

But for reasons I was able to explain here a month before Paris, none of this was going to happen. The reason it is only called the “Paris Accord” is that there was never going to be a legally binding treaty. But the really dirty secret of Paris, as Trump has now been the first world leader to reveal, was contained in a set of documents called “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs). Here, each country set out its own plan for how by 2030 it intended to meet the desired “climate goals”.

Again led by China and India, the developing countries all paid lip service to what was wanted, and how they would be expanding their “renewable” energy sources – wind, solar and the rest. But buried away in the small print, as dug out by the meticulous researcher Paul Homewood on his NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat blog (and reported here), was the devastating real story.

http://ift.tt/2qTYCk3

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT http://ift.tt/16C5B6P

June 3, 2017 at 09:54PM

Bloomberg Offers to Pay for the UN Green Fund

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is so upset that President Trump has cancelled payments to the UN Green Fund, he is sending his own money to the UN.

Mike Bloomberg doubles down to ensure America will fulfill the Paris Agreement

Today, Mike Bloomberg, the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, announced a commitment of up to $15 million to support the operations of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Executive Secretariat, including its work to help countries implement their commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Bloomberg will also work with other governments and philanthropies that may be interested in supporting the UNFCCC at this critical time. The pledge aims to fill a significant funding gap that comes as a result of President Donald Trump’s announced withdrawal from the Paris agreement and proposed steep budget cuts for international programs, including on climate.

“Americans are not walking away from the Paris Climate Agreement,” said Bloomberg. “Just the opposite – we are forging ahead. Mayors, governors, and business leaders from both political parties are signing onto a statement of support that we will submit to the UN – and together, we will reach the emission reduction goals the U.S. made in Paris in 2015. As a sign of our commitment, Bloomberg Philanthropies, in partnership with others, will make up the approximately $15 million in funding that the U.N.’s Climate Secretariat stands to lose from Washington. Americans will honor and fulfill the Paris Agreement by leading from the bottom up – and there isn’t anything Washington can do to stop us.”

Patricia Espinosa, the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said “We are grateful to Bloomberg Philanthropies for this generous contribution. While funding from governments remains central to our work, this kind of support is crucial for the work of the Secretariat to assist nations in their efforts to implement their commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement. In order to achieve Paris in full and deliver a low emissions, resilient and more secure future for every man, woman and child, it is very encouraging to see that all actors reaffirm their willingness to work together.”

Trump indicated the administration will terminate all support for UN climate change efforts. This would slash the US contribution to the operations of the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN — creating an immediate gap. It will also cut previously promised funding for the Green Climate Fund, which provides billions of dollars in support for developing countries to meet their Paris Agreement commitments. The Green Climate Fund recently launched a request for proposals from private sector companies to cut emissions or improve climate resilience in developing countries, offering a total $500 million in funding overall.

From 2014 to 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies supported the UNFCCC – the climate negotiating body of the UN – for its work with “non-state actors” including cities, states and businesses. Bloomberg Philanthropies can fill the gap left by the US government backing out of its commitments. Support would be allocated to cover staff costs in Bonn, Germany associated with their climate negotiations and communications efforts.

About Bloomberg Philanthropies: Bloomberg Philanthropies works in more than 120 countries around the world to ensure better, longer lives for the greatest number of people. The organization focuses on five key areas for creating lasting change: Arts, Education, Environment, Government Innovation and Public Health. Bloomberg Philanthropies encompasses all of Michael R. Bloomberg’s charitable activities, including his foundation and his personal giving. In 2016, Bloomberg Philanthropies distributed over half a billion dollars. For more information, please visit bloomberg.org or follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter @BloombergDotOrg.

Media Contact:
Rebecca Carriero, rebeccac@bloomberg.org +1-212-205-0182

Source: http://ift.tt/2rsFCuY

This move simply reinforces my perception of President Trump’s genius when it comes to getting a good deal for US taxpayers. There never was any need for the USA to put taxpayer’s money into the UN Green Fund – rich virtue signallers like Bloomberg are happy to pick up the tab.

Now if only Trump can persuade Bloomberg to pick up the tab for the USA’s entire UN contribution. Maybe we could define all UN contributions as “green money”.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

June 3, 2017 at 09:31PM