Green Dreams: No Kids, No Cars, No Meat, No Flying!

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

No kids, no cars, no meat, no flying! And even that won’t save you from man-made climate change

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau really wants to save the planet from man-made global warming, he should tell Canadians to stop having kids, don’t drive, don’t fly and don’t eat meat.

Those are the four most efficient ways of reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change in the developed world.

By contrast, the “solutions” pushed by Canadian governments and educators, such as recycling and switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, while they may be “feel good” exercises, are insignificant.

This as reported by University of British Columbia PhD student Seth Wynes and Prof. Kimberly Nicholas of Sweden’s Lund University, in their paper, “The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions” published last week in the journal, Environmental Research Letters.

The biggest saving by far comes from having no children, or fewer of them.

Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, compared to 0.213 tonnes by recycling.

Going carless saves 2.4 tonnes, compared to 0.1 tonnes by replacing incandescent lightbulbs with energy efficient ones.

Avoiding one transatlantic flight per year saves 1.6 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.247 tonnes by washing clothes in cold water.

And switching to a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.21 tonnes by hanging your clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer.

Despite this, Wynes and Nicholas report, “we find that 10 high school science textbooks from Canada (covering seven provinces, with 80% of the population) largely fail to mention these actions — they account for 4% of their recommended actions — instead focusing on incremental changes with much smaller potential emissions reductions.”

Further, “government resources on climate change from the EU, USA, Canada, and Australia also focus recommendations on lower-impact actions.”

Thankfully, the researchers don’t recommend our governments force Canadians to have smaller families, although this is a common refrain among radical environmentalists, whose love for humanity is surpassed only by their hatred of people, save for themselves of course.

In that context, consider China’s “basic dictatorship” (which Trudeau says he admires), which only abandoned in 2015 the infamous “one-child policy” it imposed in 1979.

But that didn’t stop China from taking credit at international meetings on climate change for decades, arguing its one-child policy had prevented 300 million births, the equivalent of the U.S. population, and saved 1.3 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, based on global average per capita emissions of 4.2 tonnes.

The Wynes, Nicholas study is useful because it spells out the fundamental lifestyle and societal changes we would have to make, just to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction targets Trudeau has committed us to under the Paris climate agreement.

Ironically, even if we achieved our targets, and every other nation on Earth did the same, all it would do is doom the world to catastrophic global warming by the end of this century, according to the climate science.

But this is the fantasy world we live in when it comes to “fighting” climate change.

Full post

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

July 17, 2017 at 05:02AM

Trump To Steer UN Global Warming Funds To Coal, Gas Projects

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

The Trump administration will use its position as a donor to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to steer money towards coal-fired power plants and natural gas infrastructure, according to an unnamed White House official.

President Donald Trump will do his best to use the Obama administration’s $1 billion donation to the GCF to “advance American-energy interests globally,” the official told Bloomberg.

Trump will build on his G20 pledge to “work closely with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently,” and has already begun rolling back Obama-era restrictions on international financing of coal plants.

Trump pledged to eliminate funding for UN global warming programs, but his administration still has a seat at the negotiating table, thanks to the $1 billion the Obama administration handed the GCF before leaving office.

The GCF was set up in 2010 for rich countries to deposit money that would be used to fund green energy and global warming mitigation projects in poor countries. President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund, but only gave $1 billion.

The GCF became a major focus in the negotiations of the Paris climate accord, and would play a role in the $100 billion per year pledge for climate funding rich countries made to poor ones.

Trump announced that he would withdraw from the Paris accord in early June, but his administration will work to make sure that taxpayer dollars already handed over to the UN help advance U.S. interests.

Environmentalists were outraged at the news, and the Sierra Club’s John Coequyt said that Trump’s plan is like “taking the fire department’s budget and using it to pour gasoline on the blaze.”

Trump’s energy policy centers around U.S. “energy dominance,” rather than fighting global warming. The president called the Paris accord a plan to redistribute wealth from the U.S. to economic competitors, like China, who would not be bound to reduce emissions and could get money from the UN.

“This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States,” Trump said in early June when announcing his intention to withdraw from the agreement.

Full post

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

July 17, 2017 at 05:02AM

Fear Is The Business Model That Has Made Al Gore Rich

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

“I feel so scared” he wails, before vision of solicitous uncle Al patting his hand in an attempt to soothe away his fears of the apocalypse.

Scaremongering is what Gore does best, and fear is the business model that has made him rich, though his every apocalyptic scenario has failed to materialise.

In Australia last week to spruik his upcoming movie An Inconvenient Sequel, the former US vice president tried it on again, claiming Mother Nature was “screaming” and the world would ­descend into “political disruption and chaos and diseases, stronger storms and more ­destructive floods” unless we buy his snake oil.

Silly Labor premiers bought that snake oil last week, pledging alongside the grinning Gore that Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and South Australia would embrace renewables to produce zero net emissions by 2050.

They haven’t learned the lesson from SA’s extreme green experiment with renewable energy that has produced nothing but crippling blackouts and the highest electricity prices in the world.

Any normal person with such a woeful record of accuracy as Gore would be ashamed to show his face. Eleven years after his Inconvenient Truth movie scared little kids witless, his warnings of climate armageddon have come to nothing.

“Unless we take drastic measures the world would reach a point of no return within 10 years,” he told us then. Wrong. In fact the world has just been through almost 20 years in which there has been a hiatus in global warming, even as carbon dioxide has increased: an “inconvenient pause” as some wags put it.

Around the world people are waking up to the fact that their leaders have been crying wolf, while their electricity bills go through the roof.

Australia’s prosperity is built on the reams of cheap, abundant fossil fuel under our feet, and yet green zealots have forced us into an energy crisis.

But when Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly last week pointed out the logical fact that Australians will die because of high power bills, he was slammed as a “scaremonger” by the very people who worship at Al Gore’s feet.

Yes, cold kills, and electricity prices have doubled in the past decade, as uncertainty plagues the energy sector, and cheap coal-fired power is priced out of the market by government subsidies for unreliable renewable energy production.

The states, which bear much of the blame, continue with the fantasy that you can replace coal with wind and solar while simultaneously banning the development of onshore gas fields.

The iron-clad law of ­energy supply is that more ­renewables force out baseload power, which you need when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

Yet SA is pretending that the world’s biggest battery built at huge taxpayer expense by another global green huckster, Elon Musk, is going to save the day.

The diabolic task facing federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg is to wrangle agreement on something approaching a rational energy policy out of the recently ­released Finkel Review.

Unlike Donald Trump, this government doesn’t have an electoral mandate for pulling out of the Paris treaty.

Full post

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

July 17, 2017 at 04:02AM

Why We Love Doomster Stories

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

Summary: A new chapter has begun in the climate wars, which reveals secret things about America. Things which we must know if we are to steer America to a safe and prosperous future.

“I want doomster news stories, and plenty of them!”

This week a new phase in the climate wars began with publication of “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells in New York magazine — “Famine, economic collapse, a sun that cooks us: What climate change could wreak — sooner than you think.” It is commonplace alarmist propaganda — exaggerations, misrepresentations, without any context about the odds of these horrific things happening.

This has been the Left’s primary method of influencing Americans since the early 1970s — pollution, resources running out, global famine, etc. It has never succeeded in changing US public policy (see Focusing on worst case climate futures doesn’t work. It shouldn’t work). The Right too — crime, national bankruptcy, evil minority groups, and now terrorism. Why do they do it? This latest chapter of the climate wars shows the answer. NYMag published a follow-up article that opens with what is most important to journalists, and explains why they love doomster stories.

“We published ‘The Uninhabitable Earth” on Sunday night, and the response since has been extraordinary — both in volume (it is already the most-read article in New York Magazine’s history) and in kind.”

Science be damned. Fear sells. What counts in the real world are clicks, and the advertising dollars that flow from them. Today editors across America are banging on desks, demanding that their reports write stories about the very certain death to everybody coming very soon. Special interest groups from coast to coast are preparing press releases about the looming disasters requiring funds for them.

Today climate activists are popping Champaign corks, convinced that the public’s interest in climate doomsters means support for their political agenda. Are they right?

Why we love doomster stories

In the March 1987 issue of Playboy, Peter Moore wrote about the Crisis Crisis.

“America today is suffering an epidemic of nation-sweeping events unseen since the Biblical plagues in Egypt. In the attack of the killer trends, we are terrified on Monday by a crisis we scarcely knew existed the previous Friday, and Monday’s dark portent, in turn, gives way to the next week’s hysteria.

“In horrific succession, herpes anxiety is overtaken by the plague of AIDS, which is followed by the shocking specter of Third World debt. After a brief but chilly nuclear winter, we are threatened by our own national-debt crisis and devastated by starvation in Ethiopia; then it’s back to our leaky ozone layer. Terrorists are suddenly in our midst, then the homeless — until all is swept away by crack mania.

“The problems appear, the alarms sound, the cover stories and the special reports proliferate. Then the media lose interest, and it’s on to the next disaster. The phenomenon is so pernicious, it’s worthy of a cover story all its own. Call it the Crisis Crisis.”

This shows the key to these outbreaks of fear: we don’t change our behavior in response to these crises because they are entertainment.

This explains American’s odd disinterest in experts’ past record of failed predictions and bad advice (e.g., Paul Ehrlich on the Left, Larry Kudlow on the Right). Why care if what we read about the world is accurate, since we have no intention of using this information. A collector of maps doesn’t ask if the maps are correct; they want pretty old maps — with colorful dragons on edges. Only those navigating to a destination demand accurate charts.

Most media firms target the outer party — the large body of Americans interested in current events and with the income to attract advertisers. They understand what we want, and so provide a mirror in which we can see ourselves. We want simple exciting stories that provide entertainment and catharsis.  Politically ineffectual, we want to believe ourselves engaged. So we consume information (becoming well-informed) and write posts or comments (21st C letters to the editor).

Horror stories do this well. Special interest groups manufacture them in hope of gaining attention. Journalists turn them into exciting stories for our entertainment. The 1% watch and laugh. See details about this process here. Look to the past to see how this works.

Full post

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

July 17, 2017 at 04:02AM