All change for climate and energy policy again in the US as Trump declares victory in the Presidential election. A severe downgrade for government alarmism and linked policies looks inevitable.
– – –
Former President Trump has promised to take the US out of the Paris climate agreement – as he did briefly during his first term in office – and is also reported to be under pressure to pull the US out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for the first time if he becomes president, says Climate Home News.

While leaving the Paris Agreement would be legally straightforward, legal experts are divided on whether Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC without the approval of the US Senate and – if he did – how easy it would be for a future president to re-join.
. . .
Exiting the Paris pact
The Trump campaign has promised to take the US out of the Paris climate agreement if he wins, joining just three other countries outside the landmark climate deal: Iran, Libya and Yemen.

During Trump’s last term in office, the climate-change sceptic managed to yank the US out only briefly – for less than four months. [Talkshop comment – due to Paris Agreement rules, see full article].
. . .
If elected again, this time around Trump would be able to file to quit the Paris Agreement on his first day in office and the US would leave a year later. This would mean the world’s second biggest-emitting country would no longer have to submit a national climate action plan to the United Nations every five years.

As all countries are supposed to publish an updated plan next year, however – before the US under Trump could officially leave – Washington would still be expected to submit one.

Any plan submitted by a Trump administration is likely to be far weaker than one from a Democrat-led government though – and that weakening could be contagious, particularly with regard to geopolitical rival China, the world’s biggest carbon polluter [sic]. [Talkshop comment – carbon dioxide is a vital gas for nature].

UNFCCC case uncertain
Trump could go even further though in cutting ties with the UN climate process. While the Trump campaign has not clarified its position, both Politico and Bloomberg reported that lobbyists have drafted executive orders they hope to get Trump to sign which would pull the US out of both the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The UNFCCC is the founding treaty of the UN climate talks, under which the Paris Agreement was negotiated. It was agreed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and includes all countries – even the three that have not ratified the Paris pact.
. . .
UNFCCC budget squeeze
If Trump does pull the US out, Stockholm Environment Institute researcher Richard Klein said that “one of the most direct effects will be on the UNFCCC’s budget”.

The US currently contributes about a fifth of the Bonn-based organisation’s budget. It is already low on funds this year, forcing it to make cut-backs while taking on ever-greater responsibilities in the world’s effort to tackle climate change. With the US out, China would become the UNFCCC’s biggest funder.

A US exit would also change COP climate summits. COP stands for “Conference of the Parties” to the UNFCCC – and if the US left only the Paris Agreement, it would still be a party to the UNFCCC.

But if it left the UNFCCC, it would no longer be a party and become just an observer – the same category as business lobbyists and climate campaigners.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/6weRF0Q

November 6, 2024 at 03:24AM

By Paul Homewood

Shame on the Telegraph for publishing this rubbish:

Climate change is fuelling Britain’s mental health crisis, according to the UK Health Security Agency, amid a crunch in the jobs market with millions of working-age adults off sick.

Extreme weather including heatwaves and floods is directly harming people’s health, while the sustained threat of a worsening climate is increasing “psychological distress” on the population, the agency warned.

It is compiling a report on the links between climate change and mental health, as well as the groups most at risk and potential interventions to ease the impact.

The agency has launched a call for evidence, seeking proposals on ways to support sufferers.

The UK Health Security Agency replaced Public Health England in 2021 as the government body responsible for protecting the health of the British public.

The NHS is under growing strain from the increasing demand for mental health services, while the economy is also suffering severely as widespread health problems keep a growing number of adults off work.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/11/06/climate-change-fuelling-mental-health-crisis/

.

Should Tim Wallace really still be the Deputy Economics Editor when he writes such balderdash?

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/To5OKvn

November 6, 2024 at 03:13AM

By Paul Homewood

Getting up in the middle of the night to run the washing machine will help. Downsizing to a slightly smaller TV might make a small difference. And of course switching off your mobile for a few hours every day may have to be mandatory, not just to avoid all the craziness on social media, but to keep the grid running.

The National Energy System Operator has this week warned the Energy Secretary Ed Miliband that it will take a “Herculean effort” by the whole country to make sure we can keep the power system running while ending the use of fossil fuels by 2030. But hold on. That is crazy. And if Miliband does mandate power cuts, as looks increasingly likely, it will surely bring down the government – and rightly so.

When the government set the target of making the UK’s electricity grid completely free of fossil fuels by 2030 we were told repeatedly that renewable energy would be cheaper, cleaner, create hundreds of thousands of “well-paid green jobs”, end dependency of foreign powers, and turbo-charge investment and growth. We would set an example to the world on climate change, while getting richer at the same time.

The trouble is, it is not working out quite as planned. According to the slightly sinister sounding Neso, millions of households may have to be persuaded to shift their power consumption to even out the load on the grid. Wind and solar power are so variable, and capacity so limited, that if we all start boiling the kettle at the same time the whole system will crash.

It is not hard to see the slippery slope here. Sure, it may start with “persuading” us to change the way we use power, perhaps with some increasingly deranged TikToks from “Green Ed” himself showing us how to cook dinner in the middle of the night. Soon afterwards, there will be rationing, and after that power cuts, with the grid switched off at regular intervals. Brownouts, as they are known in South Africa, and a few other third world countries, will become a regular feature of our lives. 

And yet, that is surely completely unnecessary. It is not as if a functioning 24-7 electrical grid is a new technology. Indeed, the world’s first power station was opened in Holborn, in London, in 1882 by Thomas Edison. We used to lead the world in generating electricity.

Likewise, we don’t have to make ourselves completely dependent on wind and solar. Even leaving aside our abundant resources of shale oil and gas – which both those “far-right ideologues” Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden have supported to the hilt – we could be ripping up the insane planning laws that stop us from building a new generation of nuclear power stations at reasonable cost. The public won’t be fooled. Power rationing, when it comes, will be entirely self-inflicted.

The last government to mandate power cuts was Edward Heath’s Conservative government of the early 1970s. The circumstances, of course, were very different. Heath was battling the mining unions, while Miliband and Starmer will be stopping the power as a deliberate policy choice.

The outcome will be much the same, however. The Heath government quickly fell. In reality, uninterrupted electricity is so fundamental to life that no government that can’t deliver it can expect to stay in office for long. If Labour switch off the power, it will be the end of this government – and rightly so. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/05/if-net-zero-means-letting-britain-go-dark-labour-are-finish/

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/KpF0LWX

November 6, 2024 at 02:51AM

By Jo Nova

A historic victory — The greatest political comeback in the USA

Talking about Elon — Trump raved and said “We have to protect our super geniuses”. This is so incredibly rare — the recognition at the highest level that scientific and engineering genius need to be protected.



I’m still the cynic looking for the gotcha — but he has also won the popular vote, every swing state and taken back the Senate. This is excellent. How can the Blob cheat their way out of this? Could they have planted “fake votes” for Trump to pretend he cheated and dispute the results, could they claim he is an insurrectionist on January 6th to disqualify him, after all his supposed “crimes” were laundered before the voters and the voters still voted for him.

Imagine how many votes he would have won if the media hadn’t worked against him every minute.

In Australia, our entire national renewable energy policy just turned into an albatross.

But the dark malevolent power of the ACMA Misinformation Bill was on the agenda in the Australian Parliament today. This legislation threatens the existence of this blog, social media, and all the independent voices […]

via JoNova

https://ift.tt/TbIZXDg

November 6, 2024 at 02:48AM