ARE WE FINALLY GETTING A POLITICAL LEADER WHO IS PREPARED TO CHALLENGE THE CLIMATE EXTREMISTS

It is interesting that no leader of any major UK party (other than Reform) has challenged the orthodox position on climate change, that we must reach net zero by 2050 no matter what the cost, until now. If you read the link, below, you will see that Robert Jenrick is not exactly abandoning net zero, but he is clear that we must not keep to a timetable which ruins the economy. That there is a real possibility of ruining the economy is an admission that has not been made before, though I am sure it has been in the minds of our other leaders. A shift in the timetable would be an important start towards abandoning it. It will, no doubt cause an outcry from those wedded to this ideology, and a huge sigh of relief from the rest of us! 

A new dawn for Net Zero policy? (netzerowatch.com)

via climate science

https://ift.tt/g2FyB4a

October 17, 2024 at 01:40AM

Freedom From Real Poverty Means Providing Real Electricity On Tap

The only characters who talk about wanting wind and solar in the poorest countries are those sitting smug in the richest countries.

The world’s poorest just want power delivered when they need it and at a price they can afford. When pompous NGOs like Greenpeace attempted to set up a local solar power grid in India, locals practically rioted and demanded ‘real’ electricity, not ‘fake’ electricity that’s only available in the middle of the day when they don’t really need it.

As Robert Bryce explains below a little meaningful power makes a very big meaningful difference of those at the bottom end of the economic spectrum.

Climatism Or Energy Humanism?
Substack
Robert Bryce
9 September 2024


On Saturday, I gave a 10-minute TED-style talk on energy humanism to about 300 high school students. The talk was part of an all-day event at the John Cooper School in The Woodlands called the Summit for Emerging American Leaders. The event was arranged by US Rep. Dan Crenshaw, the Republican and former Navy SEAL who represents Texas House District 2. The caption for my talk is the same as the headline above. In April, I gave a similar presentation to about 50 students at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.

In both lectures, I explained that today’s students are inundated with messaging about catastrophic climate change and claims that we have to quit using hydrocarbons. My aim in the presentations was simple: to remind them that regardless of what they think about climate change, energy poverty is rampant and that the real challenge we face isn’t to use less energy. Instead, it’s to make energy more affordable and more abundant so that we can continue adapting to the weather (whatever it is) and help ensure that more people all over the world — particularly women and girls — can enjoy higher living standards.

Here are some of the slides I used in the presentations.

I began with the photo above. As I explained in my latest book, A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations,  Rehena is a resident of Majlishpukur, a tiny agricultural settlement located southeast of Kolkata. When I met her, she was 44 years old. A soft-spoken, elegant woman, she had her first child, a girl, when she was 16. Two other children, a boy and a girl, came shortly afterward. My friend, Joyashree Roy, a senior fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, explained in Bengali that we wanted to discuss electricity. Rehena replied that her modest home had been connected to the electric grid 14 years earlier. In A Question of Power, I wrote:

She immediately began talking about the difference that electricity had made to her children and their schoolwork. Thanks to electricity, her children were able to read books, practice their writing, and manage their school work at night. That had had a clear and positive result: one of her daughters was attending college in Kolkata, a fact of which Rehena was clearly proud. After we’d talked for a while longer, I asked Rehena: “If you had lived in a house that had electricity when you were growing up, would you have gone to university, too?” A brief smile flashed across her face and without a nanosecond of hesitation, she nodded her head to the right, in the way typical of many residents of West Bengal, and said, “Yes. I would have.” There was no remorse. No bragging. No what-could-have-beens in her reply. Only a direct, matter-of-fact response that was almost as if I’d asked her if the sun was going to come up in the east the next morning.

In the book, I continued:

That 15-minute conversation that I had with Rehena and Joyashree made me see the light: Darkness kills human potential. Electricity nourishes it. It is particularly nourishing for women and girls.

I then showed the students this slide to emphasize that electricity poverty affects some 3.7 billion people today.

My colleague Tyson Culver shot the image of this woman pumping water by hand in Majlishpukur, the same village where I talked to Rehena Jamadar. My interview with Rehena and this image are featured in our first documentary, Juice: How Electricity Explains The World. You can watch it for free on YouTube by clicking here.

A few years ago, the late demographer Hans Rosling estimated that some five billion people are wearing clothes that have been washed by hand. That means that about 2.5 billion women and girls are doing that washing.

On Saturday, I gave the students a homework assignment. I told them they had to go home and watch Rosling’s fantastic 2010 TED talk.

I then focused on indoor air pollution and the problem of low-quality cooking fuels.

I’ve looked at these numbers many times and still find them shocking. Further, as I explain in nearly every lecture I give, these aren’t my numbers, they are the numbers. In this case, they come from the World Health Organization.

Again, the numbers are shocking. I explained to the students that most of those 3.2 million deaths per year could be prevented if developing countries had enough propane and butane stoves. Clean-burning LPG could replace the wood, straw, dung, and charcoal that is now being used. That, in turn, would ease the indoor air pollution problem and save untold numbers of women and girls from contracting respiratory ailments and, in many cases, from premature death.

Despite rampant energy poverty around the world, it is clear, as I wrote in May, that “Environmentalism In America Is Dead.” It has been replaced by climatism and renewable energy fetishism.

The groups pushing this anti-energy messaging are spending staggering sums of money to demonize hydrocarbons and push claims that we must only use alt-energy like wind and solar.

I then cited Rob Henderson’s powerful work. His memoir, Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class, was published in February and has been a smashing success. Henderson writes here on Substack. In a sharp piece called “The Grand Canyon-Sized Chasm Between Elites and Ordinary Americans,” he laid out his thesis on “luxury beliefs.”

During my presentation at Benedictine College, I reminded the students that the Catholic Church “proclaims that human life is sacred and that the dignity of the human person is the foundation of a moral vision for society. This belief is the foundation of all the principles of our social teaching.” The US Conference of Catholic Bishops continues, saying, “We believe that every person is precious, that people are more important than things, and that the measure of every institution is whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human person.”

Regardless of whether or not you are Catholic, it is beyond dispute that energy enhances the life and dignity of the human person. If we are to be humanists, we have to be energy realists. That led to my final two slides.

As always, I ended my presentations by mentioning the decarbonization strategy I’ve been pushing for 15 years, N2N: natural gas to nuclear.

It’s a joy and a privilege to talk to students. I told them they don’t have to trust me or what I’m telling them. I encouraged them to do their own research. When one of the students asked about climate change, I repeated what I’ve said many times: Yes, climate change is a concern. It is not our only concern. We have to balance whatever efforts we make on decarbonization with the other needs in society, including, in particular, ensuring that we keep our energy and power systems affordable, reliable, and resilient. That’s the humanist view.

I hope my presentations convinced some of the students to adopt a pro-energy, pro-human outlook.
Substack

via STOP THESE THINGS

https://ift.tt/GtSM64a

October 17, 2024 at 01:30AM

Climate Anxiety Discussion Raises Alarmists’ Ire

“Could both sides of the climate debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Man, meet Alex Epstein.”

On LinkedIn, I reposted Bjorn Lomborg’s “We could stop scaring people witless with climate exaggeration,” and added the comment:

Is there any good reason for climate exaggeration–particularly to the mentally weak prone to ‘climate anxiety’? Is this a good thing even to the climate activists?

One Benjamin Silverstone responded:

The mentally weak prone to “climate anxiety”? That is the most insulting, bigoted thing I have ever heard. Check yourself Mr Bradley, look long and hard and never use the term mentally weak try and support your argument.

I replied:

Exaggeration and failed doomist predictions mark the climate debate. Here is my example from 1988.

There are hundreds more examples since 1988. And it is the children who are most at risk from climate doom propaganda. They need to hear the optimistic side of CO2/climate–that is only fair! Mentally weak adults scared of the climate future should also receive both sides of the debate.

Isn’t this fair? This should be in the Code of Ethics for psychologists dealing with climate anxiety issues.

Henrick Nordborg, program director, Renewable Energy and Environment Technology at OST in Switzerland, stated:

I am also in favor of banning all fire alarms and fire exits. They only make people nervous.

I responded: “Totally false analogy. That’s coercion.”

Colby Tiffee (33,800 followers) added:

I was recently harassed in my DMs by a self-proclaimed “Climate Psychologist”. She said the damage that people like me and others in the fossil fuel industry have done to the environment and generations of people is incalculable.

Doomism Reconsidered

Emotions run high in the climate debate. But the purveyors of doom-and-gloom are stuck in emotional quicksand. They can continue in their woe-is-me or constructively work toward human betterment in the face of uncertainty and change. This is where fossil fuels turn into the solution, not the problem. As Alex Epstein has noted (The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, pp. 126–127):

“The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.”

And as alarmist Michael Mann himself stated in a weak moment:

… hot takes, hyperbole, and polarizing commentary best generate clicks, shares, and retweets. I often encounter, especially on social media, individuals who are convinced that the latest extreme weather event is confirmation that the climate crisis is far worse than we thought…. increasingly today we see it with climate doomists…. This is not true, or at best partly true.

Could both sides of the debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? David Shukman seems to think so.

Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Man, meet Alex Epstein. The mitigation strategy has not and is not working, while engendering unintended consequences.

The post Climate Anxiety Discussion Raises Alarmists’ Ire appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource

https://ift.tt/KjTbSPi

October 17, 2024 at 01:05AM

Sahara sees first flood in half a century

If global warming caused this downpour, what caused the previous one 30 years ago?

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/H9ycYIu

October 17, 2024 at 12:01AM