Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Even with an extreme scenario, the world should be richer and more capable in 2050
You may have noticed some concerning climate headlines popping up today in your smartphone notifications:
“‘Sounding the alarm’: World on track to breach a critical warming threshold in the next five years” – CNN
“Global warming likely to exceed 1.5C within five years, says weather agency” – Financial Times
“Global warming set to break key 1.5C limit for first time” – BBC
As the above FT chart neatly shows, the newsy forecast is about breaching the 1.5°C level in a single year, not a permanent increase. That said, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says humanity better get used to 1.5° and higher without a drastic shift away from fossil fuels. Current global policies, according to the IPCC, make it “likely that warming will exceed 1.5°C during the 21st century and make it harder to limit warming below 2°C.”
But what if the global heating is more severe than expected? Anew analysisby consulting firm Capital Economics looks at a scenario in which the global average temperature rises by more than 3°C from its pre-industrial average and finds that global GDP would still nearly double by 2050.
How could that be possible given all the negative effects predicted by climatologists — which I’m not contesting — such as rising sea levels, more droughts and severe heatwaves, more extreme-weather events such as hurricanes, a loss of biodiversity and ecosystems? From the cautious and meticulous analysis by CE economists David Oxley and Gabriel Ng:
But the key takeaway is that we think global GDP would still nearly double in size between now and mid-century even if the world were to warm by more than we anticipate, largely because developed economies would be affected the least. And even in places where a warmer world would have much bigger impacts on GDP, such as in India and south-east Asia, the physical effects on economic activity would be a headwind to catch-up growth rather than putting economic development in reverse.
(One thing to keep in mind: The firm’s baseline forecast is that the increase in global temperature will be kept just below 2°C thanks to the increasing use of renewable energy sources and other technological improvements, resulting in a ecline in global greenhouse40 percent d gas emissions by 2050. This level of warming is already baked into its economic forecast.)
Caveat: Decarbonizing Our Energy Platform is the Way to Stop Prosperity
In assembling this forecast, CE highlights some of its key decisions. First, it focused on “physical risks,” such as the impacts of more severe hurricanes and consistently higher temperatures, rather than “transition risks,” the impacts of taxes and regulations meant to mitigate climate change. What’s more, CE also tried to look for economic models that took into account the possibility of non-linear outcomes.
[Note: In ClimateSpeak, mitigation doesn’t have it’s usual meaning. „Mitigate: make something, such as a problem, symptom, or punishment, less harsh or severe.“ (Mirriam-Webster). IPCC supporters speak of spending Trillions of $ on schemes to reduce carbon emissions without any guarantee of lowering climate impacts.]
But again: The impacts mentioned here won’t result in either advanced or emerging economies becoming poorer a generation from now than they are today.
Rather, the physical effects of climate change on economic activity would create headwinds that slow growth. A country suffering some of the biggest impacts from climate change would be Indonesia. Even so, CE still expects the country to become a top-ten economy by 2050. Yet under the 3°C scenario, it would rise to become the eighth largest economy rather than the fifth largest economy under the cooler CE baseline forecast. Or India: Under both scenarios, it would still be the third largest economy by 2050, but under the 3°C scenario it only be three times as large as fourth place Germany rather than four times in the baseline.
The good news here is even with a rapid and severe climate outcome over the next 25 years, there’s good reason to think humanity will have even more economic resources and technological capabilities to do something about it — while also preparing for a future where more us can use more energy to turn our dreams into reality. Innovation-driven economic growth is what provides true resilience to America and the world.
Summary:
We have always and will continue to adapt to the effects of changing weather and climate, so long as we have the economic means to prepare and respond to events. The real threat to society, humanity and the biosphere is climate policies directed against our energy platform.
The information in the longer explainer video is accurate as of the time of recording (May 13, 2023). Please go to Alberta Emergency Alert for updates:
May is wildfire season in Alberta, but every year people in the media seem astonished that this is so. There is a short video overview, or the longer explainer video and power point if you scroll down.
Wildfires Happen in May – short video overview:
The immediate assumption of media reporters and climate activists is that it is ‘too early’ for wildfires so it must be ‘climate change.’ This is not true and this video will explain why. May wildfires occur in that interval between snow melt and spring rain. April was a very dry month in Alberta with little precipitation. Likewise, due to three consecutive years of La Nina conditions, the prairies are extremely dry. These are natural conditions unrelated to human-caused climate change. This video explainer discusses some facts and statistics on wildfires, as well as questioning the media’s drive to hype wildfires as ‘climate change’ and to amplify anxiety in young people, rather than presenting information that would calm people down and be pro-active in reducing wildfire risk. The MPA – or Mobile Polar Anti-cyclone – is a large scale weather phenomenon which is affecting the May 2023 high temperatures and wind direction in Alberta. A fuller discussion of the science behind and MPA is found in our 2022 presentation which discusses the alleged “Heat Dome” over southern BC and Alberta of 2021.
This presentation references some historic wildfires like that of 1910, when Alberta’s population was only 150,000 people and we had only been a province for 5 years. Also the Chinchaga Firestorm of 1950 which was so huge, its smoke pall went round the world turning the Sun and Moon blue, and terrifying people. Alberta and BC have an additional wildfire challenge today as there is a lot of standing deadwood, the result of the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation.
Source: Natural Resources Canada – Mountain Pine Beetle
In the video, we question why the media focusses on the fears of young Sadie Vipond (who is part of a law suit against the federal government on climate change). We point out that CAPE (Canadian Assoc. of Physicians for the Environment) and Dr. Joe Vipond’s activism (her father) was largely responsible for Alberta coal phase-out. This has led to 7 Grid level 3 alerts last year in Alberta (imminent rolling brownouts/blackouts) because we are now short of 1,000 MW of dispatchable electrical power generation. The pool price has tripled, thanks to coal phase-out. This is evidence that listening to climate activists is not the best way to set energy, wildfire, or climate policies. This explainer also shows the many aspects of human-caused wildfires. Though arson is a component, the human-wildland interface is quite broad and many factors are at play. Therefore, if people were more careful and aware of FireSmart (FireWise USA) principles, it could help reduce wildfires and mitigate risk.
The present extreme fire risk will likely be with Alberta for the next week or so, therefore it is recommended by the Alberta government that citizens have a 72 hr emergency kit prepared and on standby. This is something you can do at home.
As always, if you’d like to support our work, we would appreciate your help, but in these times, you may prefer to help the evacuees. For information for wildfire updates, info for evacuees or how to donate, see this website: https://www.alberta.ca/emergency.asp
Hurricanes are only neat and exciting when they are happening someplace else to someone else. Up close, they are dangerous even for those well prepared.
“NOAA forecasters with the Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service, predict near-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2023 Atlantic hurricane season, which goes from June 1 to November 30, predicts a 40% chance of a near-normal season, a 30% chance of an above-normal season and a 30% chance of a below-normal season.”
“NOAA is forecasting a range of 12 to 17 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 5 to 9 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 1 to 4 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). NOAA has a 70% confidence in these ranges.”
This list of the 2023 Atlantic tropical cyclone names was selected by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The first hurricane of the season will be named Arlene, followed by Brett then Cindy, Don, Emily, Franklin, Gert and so on.
“The upcoming Atlantic hurricane season is expected to be less active than recent years, due to competing factors — some that suppress storm development and some that fuel it — driving this year’s overall forecast for a near-normal season. “ (emphasis mine – kh)
“After three hurricane seasons with La Nina present, NOAA scientists predict a high potential for El Nino to develop this summer, which can suppress Atlantic hurricane activity.” [ source ]
2022 had 14 named storms, 8 hurricanes with 2 major hurricanes and 5 tropical storms. Note that NOAA and the Wiki each have slightly different numbers of tropical storms for the season (5 vs 6). Nonetheless, Hurricane Ian, Cat 5, caused up to 161 human deaths and more than a billion dollars of damage, landfalling in the continental U.S. twice.
Having lived in the northern Caribbean on our ancient sailing catamaran for a dozen years, I am well versed in the activities of watching the weather, checking hurricane development daily, and planning, planning and re-planning as conditions changed. Evidence of the success of our plans is that I am here writing this today. We had several close calls and rode out one direct hit in North Carolina near Beaufort.
During hurricane season, I still check the reports and predictions daily; I have family in the USVI, in harm’s way.
Hurricanes are only neat and exciting when they are happening someplace else to someone else. Up close, they are dangerous even for those well prepared.
Sediment samples show Arctic was warmer 10,000 years ago and was ice free in the summertime. Moreover, the researchers say “it’s uncertain” if Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summertime before 2063.
Moving goalposts
Sediment samples show Arctic was warmer 10,000 years ago and was ice free in the summertime. Moreover, the researchers say “it’s uncertain” if Arctic sea ice will disappear in the summertime before 2063.
Image: NASA (public domain)
The Aarhus University conducted a study that confirms sea ice disappeared from the Arctic during the summer months during the early Holocene – 10,000 years ago.
Researchers from Aarhus University, in collaboration with Stockholm University and the United States Geological Survey, analyzed samples from the previously inaccessible region north of Greenland. The sediment samples were collected from the seabed in the Lincoln Sea. They showed that the sea ice in this region melted away during summer months around 10,000 years ago.
The research team concluded that summer sea ice melted at a time when temperatures were higher than today.
“Climate models have suggested that summer sea ice in this region will melt in the coming decades, but it’s uncertain if it will happen in 20, 30, 40 years, or more. This project has demonstrated that we’re very close to this scenario, and that temperatures only have to increase a little before the ice will melt,” says Christof Pearce, Assistant Professor at the Department of Geoscience, Aarhus University.
Summer temperatures higher than today
The researchers have used data from the Early Holocene period to predict when the sea ice will melt today. During this time period, summer temperatures in the Arctic were higher than today. Although this was caused by natural climate variability opposed to the human-induced warming, it still is a natural laboratory for studying the fate of this region in the immediate future.
In Aarhus the marine samples have been analyzed in collaboration with Associate Professor Marianne Glasius and academic technical staff Mads Mørk Jensen from the Department of Chemistry. Among other things, they studied molecules from certain algae that are only produced when there is sea ice. The researchers can thereby determine when summer sea ice was present in the area.
When the sea ice in the Lincoln Sea begins to melt during the summer months, it can have major consequences for the climate. Where white ice reflects the rays of the sun, a dark sea will absorb more than ten times as much solar energy.
“The sea ice is a base for many ecosystems. The algae we examined are food for fish, fish are food for birds, etc. How will the marine ecosystems be affected globally if the sea ice disappears? We don’t know the answer yet,” says Henrieka Detlef, an assistant professor at the Department of Geoscience.
According to the researchers from Aarhus University, the study can be interpreted as bad news and good news for the climate. Henrieka Detlef also said that if temperatures remain stable or perhaps even fall, “the sea ice would return to the area.”
Alarmist authors
Despite the undisputed powerful natural factors and cycles at play in the Arctic, some researchers take a more alarmist or even hysterical view of what the future holds. For example, warning that greenhouse gas emissions are heating up the planet, Christof Pearce said, citing dubious model results: “The study is a wake-up call, because we know that it will happen. This news is not making the situation more depressing, just more urgent. We have to act now so we can change it.”
The research is published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, and presented using an alarmist narrative. The study’s results indeed confirm natural factors were at play during the early Holocene, and thus readers need to keep in mind that these natural factors have not gone away. They continue to change and drive our climate today.
Henrieka Detlef et al, Seasonal sea-ice in the Arctic’s last ice area during the Early Holocene, Communications Earth & Environment (2023). DOI: 10.1038/s43247-023-00720-w
The rent-seekers profiting from the wind and solar scam hate nuclear power with a visceral passion. Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide gas, so they can’t rant about ‘carbon pollution’ and ‘catastrophic climate change’, as they do when they’re out to sink the prospects of coal and gas-fired power generators.
The rent-seekers profiting from the wind and solar scam hate nuclear power with a visceral passion. Nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide gas, so they can’t rant about ‘carbon pollution’ and ‘catastrophic climate change’, as they do when they’re out to sink the prospects of coal and gas-fired power generators.
And the rather other obvious problem with wind and solar (sunset and calm weather) doesn’t signify with nuclear power generation, which is available 24 x 365, irrespective of the weather.
So, whenever nuclear advocates (such as the French) go on the offensive and promote the very obvious benefits that come with nuclear power, the response from wind and solar rent seekers is little short of apoplexy.
As the team from Jo Nova reports below.
The French are leading a nuclear power alliance in Europe and threatens to block the Renewable Energy Directive Jo Nova Blog Jo Nova 18 May 2023
Signs of hope. Just as Germany recently pulled the pin on the EU’s Electric Vehicle mandate, France is now threatening to scupper the EU’s new Renewable Energy Directive unless they include a role for nuclear power. It was supposed to be signed off on Wednesday. Despite nuclear being the only reliable baseload source of “Net Zero” energy, France has had to fight for its inclusion at every step.
France is gathering 16 European nations into a Nuclear Alliance France’s Minister for Energy Transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, brought together her counterparts from member countries of the Nuclear Alliance on 16 May at the Ministry for Energy Transition. A total of 16 countries were represented. In addition to the host country, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden, plus Italy with observer status, were represented. The UK was present as a guest country.
“Nuclear power may provide up to 150 GW of electricity capacity by 2050 to the European Union (vs roughly 100 GW today),” the statement says. “This represents the equivalent of up to 30 to 45 new-build large reactors and small modular reactors in the EU and such new projects would also ensure that the current share of 25% electricity production be maintained in the EU for nuclear energy.”
Nuclear energy generates electricity in 14 of the 27 EU Member States, and currently provides 25% of Europe’s electricity and 50% of its low carbon electricity. World Nuclear News
We know this matters because Team-Renewables are angry
EU countries slam ‘crazy’ France for taking renewables legislation ‘hostage’ Victor Jack
“France is crazy, ”said a diplomat from one EU country, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about country dynamics, adding that there was “a lot” of anger at Paris “from all sides.”
BRUSSELS — Anger at France boiled over on Wednesday as EU countries accused Paris of taking a key piece of EU climate legislation “hostage” at the last minute to extract further concessions in the text.
EU ambassadors were due to sign off on the Renewable Energy Directive on Wednesday, an integral part of the bloc’s flagship Fit for 55 climate package that aims to slash greenhouse gases by 55 percent by 2030 and ramp up the share of renewables in the EU’s energy mix to 42.5 percent.
Ostensibly, France is asking for its industrial production of ammonia to be partially exempted from meeting green hydrogen targets, according to three diplomats. But that could also be a front for extracting further demands, including on nuclear, they said. Politico
“This is the Renewable Energy Directive, not the Nuclear Energy Directive ” fumed one diplomat, apparently forgetting that the aim was meant to be “low carbon”, not just jobs for the Renewables-Boys.
They’re supposed to be rescuing the world from CO2, aren’t they?
Meanwhile in Finland a Newly-Launched Nuclear Plant Sees Electricity Prices Plunge By 75% Thomas Brooke
The Olkiluoto 3 (OL3) nuclear plant completed the transition from testing to regular output last month to become Finland’s first new nuclear plant in more than four decades. It is expected to produce up to 15 percent of the country’s power demand.
And while the plant’s production is still in its early days, its launch has had a considerable effect on Finland’s energy prices, lowering the electricity spot price in the country from €245.98 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in December to €60.55 per MWh in April, a reduction of more than 75 percent, according to physical electricity exchange, Nord Pool. ReMix
There are a great many books about the Climate Crisis, the Climate Emergency, the Climate Problem and the Climate Issue – along with its myriad policy solutions—for and against.
There are a great many books about the Climate Crisis, the Climate Emergency, the Climate Problem and the Climate Issue – along with its myriad policy solutions—for and against. Amazon returns “over 50,000 results” for books about “climate change”. The authors range from politicians through teen-aged activists, economists, geologists, lawyers and assorted “tinkers, tailors, soldiers and spies”.
There is one book that is far different, with a difference that is important. It has been written by a climate scientist. Not just an academic climate lecturer, not just an academic climate researcher, but a truly professional climate scientist who has made her living doing climate science across the entire gamut of the field. She has been a climate science student, a climate science professor, a climate science researcher, the head of the atmospheric sciences department of a major university and is co-owner of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) which actively supplies real-time, real-world actionable weather and climate forecasts to clients around the world, helping them prepare for and take advantage of ever-changing weather and climate conditions.
This author, Dr. Judith Curry, does not just plug numbers into computers and write papers for the journals. She does climate science, in support of clients, helping them to make better policy and action choices. She is a working professional climate scientist, working in the trenches of the field where real people live, where real people need to know what to expect from the weather and climate in order to grow their crops, raise their children, defend against floods and droughts, and prepare for the never-quite-certain future.
This new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk — Rethinking Our Response, is truly enlightening. The world has been solely focused on the risks associated with the Earth’s changing climate and has settled on an almost-exclusive solution—eliminate the use of fossils fuels to reduce atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations—despite overwhelming evidence that the nearly everything leading to that solution, all of the data and all of our combined understanding is highly uncertain, ambiguous, vague and distinctly unsettled. Worse, much of what we would need to know to make the current policies appropriate may be simply unknowable.
The problem thus becomes “How do we make decisions about how to deal with the uncertainties presented by changing climate? How do we formulate sensible and reasonable local, regional, national and international policies despite the uncertainties? — policies that we as a species will not regret 50 years from now?”
Uncertainty is a terrific burden when we feel that “something must be done”. All of us sometimes face this kind of pressure in our daily lives – we have to do something, the situation seems intolerable, but both the situation itself and possible solutions are filled with uncertainties. Adding to that unsettling uncertainty can be the uncertainty regarding the very existence of the situation itself—is there really a problem? Or does it only seem to be so?
Regardless of where you currently find yourself on the broad spectrum of opinions (and, we can all admit, biases) about the climate issue, you will find this book will help to clarify the intellectual and informational terrain of the field, bringing into focus many of the issues you are already somewhat familiar with and, more importantly, bringing into focus many issues and facets of the broader climate policy decision-space that you may not have even been aware existed.
If you are certain in your view of present and future climate, certain in regards to what are and are not appropriate policy for solutions, abatement and adaption, you need to read this book. This book is the cure for your ailment.
If you are mystified by the swirl of conflicting opinions and ‘facts’ presented by those who all appear to be highly qualified experts in the field, if much of the data about climate seems to contradict itself, then you have met the Uncertainty Monster. Reading this book will help to vanquish the Monster aspect, and supply you with potential approaches to dealing with the ever-present uncertainties.
The lessons to be learned from this book apply not only to climate, not only to science, not only to national and international decision and policy-making, but to all aspects of life, which is itself, at all times, highly uncertain.
Bottom Line:
Very Highly Recommended. A book not to be missed by anyone whose interests include any of the sciences. You will have been amply repaid for the purchase cost and the time invested by reading even one of the sections and chapters of this truly enlightening book.
Don’t expect this book to magically eliminate the uncertainties of the Climate Issue—uncertainty is at the heart of it. And that’s a very important lesson to learn.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
For more details on the contents of the book, readers can read what Dr. Curry herself has to say:
Drivers of electric cars are unwittingly releasing more toxic tyre particles into the air than those driving petrol vehicles, experts have warned.
Scientists, analysts and regulators are growing increasingly concerned about the amount of potentially harmful tiny particles coming off tyres, especially those from heavier cars such as electric vehicles, due to the number of toxic petrochemicals that they are made from.
This comes as the Government is attempting to reduce carbon emissions under its “net zero” drive by encoruaging drivers to use electric cars. Motorists with older petrol vehicles in London also face fresh charges to enter Sadiq Khan’s Ultra-low emission zone (Ulez), which is expanding to cover all London boroughs from August.
However, experts have warned that non-exhaust pollution will rise when more electric cars are on the road.
Professor Roy M. Harrison, at the School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences at the University of Birmingham, said: “The non-exhaust emissions from road traffic in developed countries now exceed the exhaust emissions, so that is a problem. And it’s a problem that will get slightly worse as we go into a battery electric fleet and also as traffic volumes probably increase additionally.”
Modern tyres contain around 400 organic compounds, many of which are derived from crude oil. Some of these are highly toxic chemicals such as naphthalene, toluene, and isoprene, as well as heavy metals like zinc and lead.
Every time someone drives, tiny bits of their tyres break away, releasing a range of these toxic chemicals, both in larger pieces and nanoparticles. The bigger pieces will be carried off the road by rain into rivers and sewage, where they may seep into the earth or flow into the sea. The smaller particles will filter into the air and be breathed in by humans and animals, reaching deep into the lungs.
Nick Molden, chief executive at Emissions Analytics, which studies the pollution caused by tyres, said: “We’re going diametrically in the wrong direction at the moment by making our vehicles heavier.
“SUVs and electric cars are shedding an awful lot of tiny but nasty chemicals – some of which are highly carcinogenic – which we’re partly inhaling but are also getting into our water and food.”
Emissions Analytics conducted a test last year that concluded almost 2,000 times more particle pollution is produced by tyre wear than what is pumped out of the exhausts of modern cars.
“If you’re worried about burning fossil fuels in your car engine, you should be as worried about the wear from tyres”, Molden said. “Tailpipe emissions really only affect the air, whereas tyre wear affects air, soil and water.”
This is an issue for the UK and other nations as they move towards having more electric cars. The heavier a vehicle, the greater wear a tyre will face. Electric vehicles weigh an average of 200kg to 300kg more than a petrol car, due to the battery pack. They also need higher torque – the twisting power that launches a car from a standing start – than internal combustion engines, which also puts more pressure on the tyres.
The tyre manufacturer Michelin said conventional tyres wear out around 20pc faster in an electric vehicle, while Goodyear said they can wear out as much as 50pc faster.
In February, researchers at Imperial College London called for more research into the potentially harmful impact of toxic tyre particles on health and the environment. It said six million tonnes of tyre wear particles are released globally each year, and in London alone, 2.6 million vehicles emit around nine thousand tonnes of tyre wear particles annually.
The weight of electric vehicles is already causing concern from some engineers that they will put some multi-storey car parks built in the 1960s and 70s under such pressure they will be at the risk of collapse, The Telegraph reported in April. Government ministers have also urged councils to check how much weight bridges in their area can hold.
This may become even more of an issue in the future as electric cars are set to carry more weight. Rather than battery packs getting lighter as technology advances, electric car manufacturers like Tesla are actually opting for heavier iron-based batteries that do not use the expensive, scarce materials of nickel and cobalt.
We have known about the greater tyre wear on EVs for years, with its implications for particulate matter pollution. But the issue of toxic chemicals is now an added problem.
Interestingly, Michelin comment that tyre wear could be 20% higher. Tyre replacement for my car is the biggest maintenance cost for me, so along with extra brake pad wear the claim that EVs are cheaper to maintain sounds like hogwash.
We dare not permit the climate-left to bring back hunger and starvation — or heaven forbid, force us to eat insects or fake meat as our only options to avoid it!
CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen reports at CFACT.org on “climate czar” John Kerry’s recent pronouncements at a Department of Agriculture summit.
“We can’t get to net-zero,” Kerry said, “we can’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. So all of us here understand the depths of this mission.”
“Food systems themselves contribute a significant amount of emissions just in the way we do the things we’ve been doing,” he continued. “With a growing population on the planet – we’ve just crossed the threshold of 8 billion fellow citizens around the world – emissions from the food system alone are expected to cause another half a degree of warming by mid-century.”
“Though the Department of Agriculture has yet to elaborate on what it means by ‘climate smart,’ it most certainly entails the agricultural sector severing ties to fossil fuels, either ‘voluntarily’ or through coercion in the form of regulations. But because of natural gas’s role in making fertilizer, the government-forced transition will be a messy one.”
Bonner also touched on the nightmare unleashed when other nations have tried to apply climate radicalism to agriculture:
“Farmers in places as far apart as Sri Lanka and the Netherlands were ordered by their respective governments to shrink their carbon footprint by reducing their nitrogen emissions. Protests in the Netherlands have been widespread, and in Sri Lanka, the government was overthrown, with the president forced to flee the country.”
For all of human times, until quite recently in fact, hunger and privation were the norm. Then, during the last hundred years we have seen a revolution in world agriculture that has dramatically reduced, and come close to eradicating world hunger for good. In many societies, ours included, too many calories have become the challenge. That is a problem our forebears could scarcely imagine.
There are few things as fundamental as the need for our abundant food supply.
We dare not permit the climate-left to bring back hunger and starvation — or heaven forbid, force us to eat insects or fake meat as our only options to avoid it!
On Friday, the Moscow Times announced the closure of Greenpeace Russia following the government authorities’ decision to label it “undesirable,” a designation that renders all its activities illegal. The Prosecutor-General’s Office claimed that the group “intervenes in Russia’s internal affairs,” financially supports “foreign agents,” and that its activities “pose a threat to the foundation of the constitutional system and security of the Russian Federation.” It also said that after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, “Greenpeace activists have been involved in anti-Russia propaganda, calling for the further economic isolation of our country, and an increase in sanctions” imposed on Moscow.
In response, Greenpeace Russia said “By destroying Greenpeace for being critical of environmental issues, the country loses one of its leading experts in solving environmental problems.” Over the past 30 years, the organization has played a role bringing to the attention of society and policy makers the myriad environmental problems in the country, from illegal deforestation to the pollution of lakes and rivers, waste management and recycling and so on. The organization argued that “We are doing everything possible to ensure that people in our country live in favorable environmental conditions…Can the protection of the country’s nature be contrary to its interests?”
It is no surprise that the green chattering classes of the West will cast this event as yet another example of Putin’s autocratic government riding roughshod over an organization that speaks on behalf of ordinary people in Russia. Alas were it that simple.
The Indian Experience With Greenpeace
In 2015, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi cancelled the foreign funding of an estimated 10,000 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for “not complying with tax codes”. The ban on Greenpeace India provoked much furore in the Western press (here and here). The Western mainstream media cast the actions of the government as reflecting the BJP party’s “intolerant nationalism”. Yet it did little to counter the country’s Intelligence Bureau’s charges that Greenpeace was a threat to national economic security, leading protests against nuclear and coal power plants, mining projects and GM foods. According to the Bureau’s report, Greenpeace alone was leading a “massive effort to take down India’s coal-fired power plant and coal mining activity.” According to Reuters that had seen an excerpt of the report, the cancellation, disruption or delay to various development projects had clipped gross domestic product growth by 2 to 3 percent a year.
Greenpeace India defended itself from the accusations, claiming that it stood for “sustainable development”. It said “We have a legitimate right to express our views in what is the world’s largest democracy. We believe that this report is designed to muzzle and silence civil society who raise their voices against injustices to people and the environment by asking uncomfortable questions about the current model of growth.”
A good example of Greenpeace’s notions of “sustainable development” relates to the case of the village of Dharnai in India’s poorest state (Bihar) severely lacking access to electricity. Greenpeace activists set up a solar-powered microgrid for the village in 2014 with much publicity. Problems emerged immediately with the load put on the solar “grid,” as households began hooking up appliances such as television sets, electric water heaters, irons, and air conditioners. At the official opening of the solar power system, the villagers protested with banners saying, “we want real electricity, not fake electricity.” “Real” meant power from the central grid generated mostly using coal. “Fake’ referred to intermittent and dilute solar power. In great irony, embarrassed state officials facing the press at the gala opening of the Greenpeace-promoted solar showpiece ensured that the village was soon connected to the coal-fired power grid.
According to a report published last week, state-run Coal India Ltd has developed 52 coal mining projects, including 13 new coal blocks in a plan to attain the one billion tonne coal production target by the fiscal year 2025–26. As a result of aggressive coal mining developments over the past few years, India has maintained relatively stable electricity prices despite the surge in global energy prices after the Ukraine war. Greenpeace would have had it otherwise though claiming to represent the interests of India’s power-deprived citizens.
Western-Funded Environmental NGOs in the Third World
Greenpeace is headquartered in Amsterdam, has a large budget with contributions from rich foundations such as the Rockefeller Family Fund. It controls huge lobbying and litigation resources, often exceeding government finances available to many small developing countries. Well-funded NGOs such as Greenpeace represent large bureaucracies with interests in creating environmental scares to maximize income, salaries and perks of its staff and key executives. The classic example of Greenpeace raising cash via bogus alarmist reports relates to polar bears that are allegedly facing extinction.
Are Western-funded environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace operating in the Global South the moral arbiters of environmental issues affecting the poor and the marginalized? Are they the “global salvationists” giving succour to the “wretched of the earth”? Do they promote “sustainable development” in the face of predatory capitalists and their governmental supporters? As the late classical economist Deepak Lal asked in an opinion piece on the foreign-funded NGO ban, “what are we to make of their local representatives who seek to influence their countries’ public policy to the agenda of their foreign sponsors”?
Western environmental NGOs became a fixture in multilateral organizations, especially through the United Nations specialized agencies such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). They grew in influence over the 1990s via the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) which gave them formal recognition as partner agencies in setting agendas affecting policies and programs concerning developing countries.
Their greatly expanded role gained momentum as the UN moved to produce “a global consensus” for a new “sustainable development” agenda for the 1990s and beyond. These NGOs became participants in the development and implementation of UN policies and programs, endorsed enthusiastically by the UN’s then-chief Kofi Annan. In a subversion of constitutional democracy, these self-selected NGOs were given a direct voice in UN deliberations and in World Bank activities under the presidency of James Wolfensohn.
The agenda of the Western environmental NGOs operating in the developing countries is, in no uncertain terms, a left wing one. It demands radical changes in individual and social behavior opposed to the norms of modern industrial civilization, individualism, private property, profits and market competition. Such preferred changes are in keeping with the concept of “sustainable development”, a nebulous concept dreamed up by the luxury beliefs of privileged intellectuals of the developed West. It espouses the politically correct values that stand in opposition to the interests of economic development and the world’s poor in whose name the Western NGOs claim to speak.
Perhaps the clearest example of the perversions of “sustainable development” is the crisis last year in Sri Lanka’s agricultural sector. Encouraged by environmental NGOs such as Greenpeace, the government had rushed to introduce organic farming and imposed a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. It effectively ordered the country’s 2 million farmers to “go organic”. The results were quick and horrific. Domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Long self-sufficient in rice production, the country was forced to import $450 million worth of rice and domestic prices surged by approximately 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.
President Gotabaya Rajapaksa fled to the Maldives, chased out after the economic collapse unleashed a popular uprising. The president was the poster child of the World Economic Forum until the disaster happened and the WEF scrubbed him off its website. The climate ideologues in charge of agricultural policy and “sustainable farming” in the developed countries such as Holland, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are busy emulating the horrific experiment that Sri Lanka underwent.
Beware of Good Intentions!
In his essays on theology, C. S. Lewis observed that:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.”
The Western-funded environmental NGOs, the moral busybodies, may yet be the worst enemies of the poor and the marginal of the third world.
I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and in think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the US over the past 25 years.
I focus on global energy developments from the perspective of Asian countries that remain large markets for oil, gas and coal.
I have written extensively on the areas of economic development, environment and energy economics.
My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and the Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the 1984 Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow award of the World Bank and received my Ph.D. in Economics in 1992.
With that sort of track record and big money driving the editorial decisions, truth seems to have taken a back seat to the “disasters for dollars” plan at the AP.
A May 17, 2023 story by The Associated Press (AP) climate reporter Seth Borenstein received wide pickup worldwide by multiple media outlets. Titled, “The likelihood that Earth briefly hits key warming threshold grows bigger and closer, UN forecasts,” the article claims that Earth will experience “…death, destruction and damage to global ecosystems” due to the coming El Niño event expected this summer. The claim is wrong because Earth has already experienced that level of warming in modern history, and global temperature data shows it occurring, with none of those deleterious effects evident.
The media claims there will be future disaster on a temperature rise of 1.5°C – the problem is, they don’t seem to realize that this threshold has already been passed.
Below in Figure 2 is the Berkeley Earth average surface temperature record for Europe since about 1780. Europe is a good location to analyze, because some of the longest continuous temperature records are from Europe. It shows that not just 1.5°C, but 2.0°Cof warming has already occurred.
Figure 2. (click to enlarge) Berkeley Earth average European temperature showing a 2.0°C rise since about 1820. Source: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe Annotated by Anthony Watts
Yet even with 2°C of atmospheric warming since about 1820, the claimed catastrophic climate tipping points have not occurred.
Despite evidence to the contrary provided by real-world-data, climate alarmism over future tipping points seems to be a constant feature of the media, but they never happen – “its déjà vu all over again.”
Leave it to Borenstein and the AP to raise alarm about expected disasters from a 1.5°C temperature rise while ignoring the fact this is a natural event that has been going on for millennia, and we’ve already exceeded a 1.5°C temperature rise and nothing bad has happened.
Perhaps, if Borenstein and his corporate media employers write on this topic again, they might provide some balance to their stories, explaining temperature history has shown that there is nothing to fear. However, that is not likely, because it has recently been revealed that AP has been the beneficiary of an $8 million grant, specifically designed to bolster writing alarming climate stories such as this one. The Washington Examinerreports:
In the year following a grant of more than $8 million to the Associated Press from key climate change advocates, the news service has poured out at least 64 stories warning of environmental calamity, according to a new media study.
With that sort of track record and big money driving the editorial decisions, truth seems to have taken a back seat to the “disasters for dollars” plan at the AP.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute.
Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts.
He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues.
He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment.