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.
A new study finds warmth-demanding species could survive in the Holocene Arctic (northern Norway) hundreds to thousands of km north of where they reside today. This affirms temperatures were “higher than today” with much less snow and ice back then.
A new study finds warmth-demanding species could survive in the Holocene Arctic (northern Norway) hundreds to thousands of km north of where they reside today. This affirms temperatures were “higher than today” with much less snow and ice back then.
DNA evidence from a site north of the Arctic Circle indicates African wildcat (Felis lybica) used to reside in Arctic climates when CO2 levels were under 260 ppm, or at supposedly “safe” levels. The authors suggest this is a “remarkable” finding, as it is the “highest latitude location for this species ever.”
The presence of domestic cats (Felis catus) and European wildcats (Felis silverstris) in this region is also validated by 100% matching DNA evidence. Wildcat species became extinct in northern Europe after the Holocene Thermal Maximum (HTM) ended and “snow cover increased above the wildcat threshold of 20 cm over a 100-day period.”
Amberjacks (Seriola) – a fish species only found in temperate to tropical Pacific and Atlantic waters (Gulf of Mexico, Brazil) today – also lived north of the Arctic Circle during the Early Holocene.
Dogs (wolves), ducks, geese, prairie chickens, gulls, brown bear, and several species of frogs (no longer present in the Arctic today) also found the Arctic climate temperate enough to reside in northern Norway in the millennia centering around 9000 years before present.
The presence of mussel shells at much higher elevations indicate sea levels were ~90 m higher than today 13,000 to 12,000 years ago in this region (due mostly to uplift), falling to ~57 m higher than present between 9500 and 9000 years ago and then gradually declining to the present.
The authors suggest the DNA-confirmed presence of these species north of the Arctic Circle – much further north of where they can survive today – is evidence that warming periods and borealization were “a naturally recurring phenomenon in the past.”
DNA analysis of species remains has become an insightful way to analyze past variations in climate. Another recent DNA database study (Kjaer et al., 2022) published in Nature indicated the High Arctic at 82°N (north of Greenland) was 11-19°C warmer than today 2 million years ago. This warmth allowed coral reefs, green algae, and horseshoe crab to reside in the Arctic Ocean at 82°N. Today horseshoe crab cannot occupy waters north of 45°N due to the much cooler ocean temperatures.
Vietnam and other Asian countries are on a coal spree! Given the dynamics of energy use in the rapidly developing industrial sector there, it is no surprise that these nations have backpedalled on big promises made at international climate conferences to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.
SHANXI, CHINA -NOVEMBER 25: (CHINA, HONG KONG, MACAU, TAIWAN OUT) Coal is piled up as it is sorted at a coal mine on November 25, 2015 in Shanxi, China. A history of heavy dependence on burning coal for energy has made China the source of nearly a third of the world’s total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the toxic pollutants widely cited by scientists and environmentalists as the primary cause of global warming. China’s government has publicly set 2030 as a deadline to reach the country’s emissions peak, and data suggest the country’s coal consumption is already in decline. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
Vietnam and other Asian countries are on a coal spree! Given the dynamics of energy use in the rapidly developing industrial sector there, it is no surprise that these nations have backpedalled on big promises made at international climate conferences to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.
Vietnam’s projected 2024 growth rate for Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stands at 5.8%, the sixth highest in Asia. Among the biggest contributors to GDP is the industrial sector (38 percent), especially manufacturing. S&P Global has noted a considerable improvement in Vietnam’s manufacturing sector in the fourth quarter of 2023 and is expecting Vietnam to perform well this year.
Electricity is a cornerstone to manufacturing operations in Vietnam. In 2023, coal produced more than 40% of all electricity in the country, while the country’s abundant hydro reserves contributed around 30%. Natural gas accounted for about 10%.
However, 2024 is expected to see a shortfall in hydroelectric generation because of less rainfall. Simultaneously, electricity production with natural gas is being complicated by forecasts of higher gas prices. Bloomberg reports that state-run PetroVietnam Gas “recently decided not to purchase a cargo for June due to high offer prices.”
So, the heavy lifting to meet power demand must now come from coal. The country is urging coal miners to maximize production before demand reaches peak in the summer months. The country’s prime minister has asked for an increase in coal exploration as well, signalling a sustained interest in medium to long-time reliance on coal.
Vietnam’s move to increase coal use was inevitable. It cannot continually risk a huge demand-supply gap whenever dams go dry or gas prices skyrocket. The growth rate of power demand from expanding industries is increasing at a fair pace, and energy security is critical in ensuring manufacturing’s positive trend.
Similar Pattern Across Asia
Across Asia, a similar phenomenon is unfolding. The regional coal resurgence can be attributed to the rapid economic growth in these countries. China, the world’s largest coal consumer, witnessed a rise in consumption in 2024. Earlier this year, reports showed the construction of dozens of new coal plants in China. In 2023, the country accounted for 95% of construction of the world’s new coal power plants. There are a total of 1,142 operating coal-fired plants in China, which is five times more than in the U.S.
India, another major player in the Asian energy market, also saw an increase in coal imports and production. India has increased its spending on infrastructure, with an expected rebound in demand for coal-based steel and raw material manufacturing. Indonesia has 254 operational coal-fired power plants and 40 new plants under construction. Japan, too, is a big consumer of coal, being the top importer of Australian coal in recent years.
Like Australia, the U.S. has been a top source of coal imports for these Asian countries. S&P Global says, “U.S. metallurgical coal exports have seen growth fueled by Asian demand over the past few years. The potential for seaborne volumes to grow hinge on expansions in blast furnace steelmaking and met coke production in India, China and Southeast Asia.” New mines such as Arch Resource’s Leer South and the AMCI, POSCO and Itochu-led Allegheny Met’s Longview mine will play a role in meeting this demand from Asia.
It is an irony that U.S. miners are able to meet Asian needs while their own government rejects them as a fuel source for cheap electricity!
The advancement of recent emission-reduction targets for U.S. industry, as well as restrictions on the export capacity of natural gas by the Biden administration is quite astonishing in light of the ongoing expansions in fossil fuel capacity by various Asian nations.
The quality life for millions of Americans could very well decline in return for zero environmental benefit as that of Asians improves.
This commentary was first published at Real Clear Energy on May 8, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K.
As usual, we warn that these and other “average temperatures” are highly uncertain guesstimates that have no physical meaning and were exclusively invented for the global warming con. Our take on the apparent slight warming that has occurred since 1980 is that it has been driven by the natural phenomena of periodic El Niños, one of which we have been experiencing since mid-2023. On to this month’s fact checks.
Guest Post by: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and the International Climate Science Coalition, and Truth in Energy and Climate.
Editor’s note: This summary serves as a fact check on the biggest false claims made in the media in April, 2024.
But real-time global surface station data report that the cooling trend since January 2015 remains intact, despite about 500 billion tons or so of emissions:
As usual, we warn that these and other “average temperatures” are highly uncertain guesstimates that have no physical meaning and were exclusively invented for the global warming con. Our take on the apparent slight warming that has occurred since 1980 is that it has been driven by the natural phenomena of periodic El Niños, one of which we have been experiencing since mid-2023. On to this month’s fact checks.
But in March 1996, then-NASA chief climate scientist James Hansen claimed the global temperature was 59.7°F during December-January-February of 1995-1996:
“Global temperature” for December-January-February is not the same as March, but March is always warmer than December-January-February. So March 1996 must have been warmer than 59.7°F. Now, if every emission warms the planet, then March 2024 (57.9°F) should certainly have been warmer than March 1996 (59°F). But that does not appear to be the case. Something is clearly amiss with global temperature guesstimating.
Until next month, check out these additional great fact checks.
In April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) passed a new rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO2 emissions.
In April 24, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) passed a new rule that would require coal power plants that plan to continue operating after January 1, 2039, and new natural gas power plants that plan to begin operation on or after 2035 to capture at least 90% of their CO2 emissions.
How much would this cost? And is it worth it?
Well, as they say, we ran the numbers. Thankfully, researchers from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) have provided the cost and performance estimates for retrofitting an existing coal power plant with Shell’s CANSOLV CO2 capture system.
For the performance and cost estimates, I will use the NETL estimates for 90% carbon capture. (Here, I am using the term “carbon capture,” rather than “CO2 capture,” because NETL uses the mass of carbon, rather than the mass of CO2, in its calculations.)
Before the retrofit, NETL’s baseline coal power plant had a net output of 650 megawatts (MW). But after retrofitting it with the CO2 capture system, the power output was reduced by 24% to 495 MW. In terms of money, the retrofit cost is about $988 million, or about $2 million/MW of net power output.
What do these numbers mean for the United States?
Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of March 2024, the United States has 148 coal power plants in operation in the electric utility sector, with an average capacity of about 139,000 MW. Of these, 36 plants plan to retire completely on or before December 2040 and 8 plants plan to retire at least one steam turbine on or before December 2034, but not entirely. Taking the difference of 148 and 36, there are 112 coal power plants in the United States without any planned retirement year, having a total average capacity of about 96,000 MW.
Using the NETL estimates, if we were to retrofit these 112 coal power plants to enable 90% carbon capture, the 24% net power output reduction would bring electricity production down to about 73,000 MW. Applying the retrofit cost of about $2 million/MW of net power output to the plants’ reduced power output, we arrive at a projected cost of about $146 billion.
Keep in mind, these estimates are only for coal power plants. We haven’t even gotten to retrofitting natural gas power plans, nor have we addressed the cost of replacing the tens of thousands of megawatts lost in the 24% production decrease of converted plants.
And what about constructing brand new natural gas power plants? How much would that cost?
Using NETL’s baseline natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant, the numbers provided by NETL include a cost of about $1.05 billion to construct a new 992 MW plant without CO2 capture and a cost of about $1.87 billion to construct a new 883 MW plant with 90% carbon capture. In other words, the 78% plant cost increase comes with an 11% net power output reduction.
So, we clearly are talking about a lot of money to remove most of the carbon dioxide from our American power plants fueled by fossil fuels. But is spending the extra money to capture CO2 worth it?
Based on the analysis performed using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), theoretically, if the United States ceased all CO2 emissions in 2010, the amount of warming averted would be only about 0.07 °F by 2050 and 0.19 °F by 2100. Such a temperature difference is negligible and can hardly be felt or measured.
Furthermore, in the United States in 2022, the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas amounted to about 0.93 and 1.74 billion metric tons, respectively, for a total of 2.67 billion metric tons. However, the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industrial processes amounted to 5.06 billion metric tons. This means that the CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas contributed to only about 53% of the total emissions. Therefore, the temperature rise averted by stopping all CO2 emissions from burning coal and natural gas becomes even smaller compared to the above estimates from MAGICC.
Finally, besides being expensive and futile, keep in mind: Plants need CO2, along with sunlight, water, and nutrients from the soil to produce oxygen and food, both of which are essential for all living beings.
In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 have enabled an increase in the growth, food production, water-use efficiency and drought resistance of plants, as well as the greening of Earth, as confirmed by NASA. According to NASA, 70% of this greening is attributed to “fertilization” by CO2.
Given the critical role CO2 plays in driving plant and crop growth, is spending over a hundred billion dollars to remove it from the air sensible? We think not.
Frits Byron Soepyan, a research and science associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia, has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Tulsa and has worked as a process systems engineer and a researcher in energy-related projects.
This commentary was first published at Newsmax on May 6, 2024.
CO2 Coalition Research and Science Associate Frits Byron Soepyan has a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from The University of Tulsa and has worked as a process systems engineer and a researcher in energy-related projects.
America’s public lands should be conserved and remain open to the public for shared uses.
Although most public lands lie west of the Mississippi River, there are several sites here in the Eastern U.S. managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service. The Biden administration, however, is targeting millions of acres for permanent protection in the name of “conservation” to bolster its America the Beautiful (or 30-by-30) initiative–a dangerous rewilding plan masquerading as conservation.
Should the Biden administration get its way, two places — Bears Ears National Monument in southeastern Utah and Big Cypress National Preserve in South Florida – will see areas closed off to most users going forward.
Bears Ears National Monument
The Bears Ears National Monument saga continues with the new Draft Management plan unveiled on March 14th, 2024. In December 2016, former President Obama created the 1.35 million acre national monument before leaving office and without consulting Utahns. During the Trump administration, former Interior Secretary and now Congressman Ryan Zinke announced a national monument review of 27 sites, including Bears Ears, citing overreach by the previous administration. It resulted in the shrinking–not elimination–of the monument down to about 200,000 acres. Then President Biden restored the monument to its original size in an October 2021 proclamation, disregarding stakeholder input again.
The nearly 700-page Draft Management Plan contains five plans. The White House favors Alternative Plan E, the most extreme plan of the five. Plan E places a strong emphasis on indigenous knowledge (IK), noting, “This alternative is meant to emphasize resource protection and the use of Traditional Indigenous Knowledge and perspectives on the stewardship of the Bears Ears landscape. This includes consideration of natural processes and seasonal cycles in the management of BENM and collaboration with Tribal Nations to incorporate those considerations into BENM day-to-day management.” Indigenous knowledge is extremely subjective and not scientific because it generally favors progressive notions. But that isn’t stopping the Biden administration from implementing it across all federal agencies.
Equally concerning with Plan E is the proposal to restrict multiple uses across these lands managed by both the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Recreational shooting would be prohibited outright throughout the entire area. Grazing will be barred in 170,000 of 1.36M acres, while 570,000 acres would be off-limits to vehicles, and 795,000 acres would be designated as “OHV limited areas.” This isn’t the wise use of natural resources; it’s radical preservation.
Large national monument designations are questionable under Section II of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which says presidents can only protect objects of scientific, cultural, or historical significance “confined to the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” The nearly 1.4 million acres comprising Bears Ears today hardly fit the definition of “smallest area compatible.” That’s why Congress must clarify presidential powers and prevent future abuses like this from occurring again. Reforms are long overdue to make the monument designation process democratic and reduce the influence of radical preservationist groups.
Big Cypress National Preserve
In South Florida, a portion of the 720,000 acres comprising Big Cypress National Preserve could soon be declared a wilderness area.
Wilderness areas boast the highest degree of protection, are off-limits, and quite difficult to traverse. Under the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress created a National Wilderness Preservation System that, today, manages 800 areas to be “administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and to provide for the protection of these areas…”
Native American tribes, hunters, and other recreationists relayed their concerns about the wilderness designation to the Miami Herald, arguing the designation, if approved, would restrict access to scientific inquiries, air boating, hunting, and vehicles. A Native Organizers Alliance Action Fund petition also warned closing off Big Cypress like this would restrict “Tribal citizens’ right to move freely about their homeland” and fail to “accommodate Tribal rights to permanent residence in those spaces.”
These stakeholder concerns prompted Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rick Scott (R-FL) to express their dismay to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
“Big Cypress is a cherished natural resource, and its proper management is crucial to preserving its ecological integrity while maintaining access opportunities for the public,” the Florida senators wrote to Haaland. “We are deeply concerned about the potential hindrance of natural resource management, especially regarding prescribed fire, invasive species control, and the maintenance of native fish and wildlife habitats.”
The letter added, “In light of these concerns, we respectfully request that you do not move forward with any proposed wilderness designation that will hinder the proper management of public access and natural resources within the Big Cypress National Preserve.”
Public lands are for all Americans to enjoy and cherish, not just the Biden administration’s preferred environmental buddies. This isn’t conservation; it’s a land grab.
This post presents the climate alarm quotations of today with the quotations from Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome in the late 1960s/early 1970s for historical perspective.
“Many people think that the threat of ‘global warming’ arose only towards the end of the twentieth century…. Climate change, either natural or anthropogenic, has been discussed from the classical age onwards, evolving from the expected benefits of climate engineering to today’s fear of global disaster.”
– Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr, “Climate Change in Perspective,” Nature, June 8, 2000, p. 615
It is all gloom, what Michael Mann cautioned against as “doomism.”[1] Such alarm has been the mainstream narrative—and wrong—since the 1960s. And warnings about how exaggeration can backfire (New York Times: “In Climate Debate, Exaggeration Is a Pitfall“) have been thrown to the wind in the futile, costly pursuit of Net Zero.
This post presents the climate alarm quotations of today with the quotations from Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome in the late 1960s/early 1970s for historical perspective.
77% of respondents believe global temperatures will reach at least 2.5C above pre-industrial levels, a devastating degree of heating;
almost half – 42% – think it will be more than 3C;
only 6% think the 1.5C limit will be achieved.
So the Guardian contacted every available lead author or review editor of all IPCC reports since 2018. Almost half replied – 380 out of 843, a very high response rate.
Quotations in Article
“Sometimes it is almost impossible not to feel hopeless and broken. After all the flooding, fires, and droughts of the last three years worldwide, all related to climate change, and after the fury of Hurricane Otis in Mexico, my country, I really thought governments were ready to listen to the science, to act in the people’s best interest.”
“We have seen these extreme events happening everywhere. There is not a safe place for anyone. I find it infuriating, distressing, overwhelming…. I got a depression.”
– Ruth Cerezo-Mota (National Autonomous University of Mexico)
“I’m relieved that I do not have children, knowing what the future holds.”
Anonymous expert
“It looks really bleak, but I think it’s realistic. It’s just the fact that we’re not taking the action that we need to.”
“Scientists are human: we are also people living on this Earth, who are also experiencing the impacts of climate change, who also have children, and who also have worries about the future. We did our science, we put this really good report together and – wow – it really didn’t make a difference on the policy. It’s very difficult to see that, every time.”
Lisa Schipper, University of Bonn
“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south. The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”
African scientist (anonymous)
“Running away from [unescapable reality] is impossible and will only increase the challenges of dealing with the consequences and implementing solutions.”
Joeri Rogelj, Imperial College, London
“Humanity is heading towards destruction. We’ve got to appreciate, help and love each other.”
Scientist, Pacific Island nation (anonymous)
“It is the biggest threat humanity has faced, with the potential to wreck our social fabric and way of life. It has the potential to kill millions, if not billions, through starvation, war over resources, displacement. None of us will be unaffected by the devastation.”
James Renwick, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
“I am scared mightily – I don’t see how we are able to get out of this mess.”
Tim Benton, Chatham House
“Most people do not realise how big these [tipping point] risks are.”
Wolfgang Cramer, Mediterranean Institute of Biodiversity and Ecology.
“[Climate change] is an existential threat to humanity and [lack of] political will and vested corporate interests are preventing us addressing it. I do worry about the future my children are inheriting.”
Lorraine Whitmarsh, University of Bath, UK
“The tacit calculus of decision-makers, particularly in the Anglosphere – US, Canada, UK, Australia – but also Russia and the major fossil fuel producers in the Middle East, is driving us into a world in which the vulnerable will suffer, while the well-heeled will hope to stay safe above the waterline…. Civil disobedience [is the next step].”
Stephen Humphreys, London School of Economics
“The enormity of the problem is not well understood. So there will be environmental refugees by the millions, extreme weather events escalating, food and water shortages, before the majority accept the urgency in reducing emissions – by which time it will be too late.”
Ralph Sims, Massey University, New Zealand
“I feel resigned to disaster as we cannot separate our love of bigger, better, faster, more, from what will help the greatest number of people survive and thrive. Capitalism has trained us well.”
US scientist (anonymous)
“… our societies will be forced to change and the suffering and damage to lives and livelihoods will be severe.”
Michael Meredith, at the British Antarctic Survey
Paul Ehrlich: 1960s Forward
A half century ago, the Malthusian mainstream, the establishment, was equally alarmed.
“At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump. We do know that very small changes in either direction in the average temperature of the Earth could be very serious. With a few degrees of cooling, a new ice age might be upon us, with rapid and drastic effects on the agricultural productivity of the temperature regions. With a few degrees of heating, the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps would melt, perhaps raising ocean levels 250 feet. . . . In short, when we pollute, we tamper with the energy balance of the Earth.”
Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Cutchogue, New York: Buccaneer Books, 1968, 1971), p. 39.
“As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon-dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”
Paul Ehrlich, The Machinery of Nature, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1986, p. 274
MIT/Club of Rome (1972)
“If all the policies instituted in 1975 in the previous figure are delayed until the year 2000, the equilibrium state is no longer sustainable. Population and industrial capital reach levels high enough to create food and resource shortages before the year 2000.”
Donella Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972), p. 169.
“Although we have many reservations about the approximations and simplifications in the present world model, it has led us to one conclusion that appears to be justified under all the assumptions we have tested so far. The basic behavior mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital, followed by collapse.”
Donella Meadows et al. The Limits to Growth, p. 142.
“Limits to Growth … ‘astonishingly young’ (the oldest was 30) authors were true believers. Dennis and Donella Meadows retreated to a New Hampshire farm after completing the book ‘to learn about homesteading and wait for the coming collapse.’ ‘We definitely felt like Cassandras,’ Donella Meadows added, ‘especially as we watched the world react to our work’.”
Quoted in Robert Bradley, Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy (2009), p. 234.
And older …
“Climate apprehension did not begin in 1988 or in 1957, or even in 1896. There were colonial, early modern, and even ancient precedents. . . . We have arrived, late in the twentieth century, at a climate discourse that is again saturated with metaphor, values, and apprehensions.”
James Rodger Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 136.
“‘Something is wrong with the weather’ is the title of a recent article in U.S. News and World Report, and an article in Saturday Review asks, ‘Is man changing the climate of the earth?’ The layman, and the nonspecialist on reading these articles and the many others in the newspapers will probably be convinced that the climate is changing, for the accumulating evidence is considerable. He will probably be confused also, for the reasons given for the change are as varied as the authors. One author will blame the change on sunspots, another on the consumption of fossil fuels producing an increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. Still another author will suggest air pollution as a significant cause, and another maintains that a complicated feedback of energy between sea and air is sufficient to produce irregular climate fluctuations. . . . Who is right?”
Reid Bryson, “‘All Other Factors Being Constant . . . ’ A Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change,” Weatherwise, April 1968; reprinted in John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, Global Ecology: Readings Toward a Rational Strategy for Man (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971), pp. 78-79.
“The debate over climate change, both from natural causes and human activity, is not new. Although the Baron C.-L. de Montesquieu is undoubtedly the best known Enlightenment thinker on the topic of climate determinism, others, notably the Abbe Du Bos, David Hume, and Thomas Jefferson, observed that climatic changes exerted a direct influence on individuals and society and that human agency was directly involved in changing the climate.”
James Rodger Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 11.
“As public awareness of global warming reached an early peak in the mid-1950s, the popular press began to carry articles on climate cooling. Fortune published an article in 1954 entitled ‘Climate: The Heat May Be Off,’ and in 1958, just as the IGY was winding down, journalist Betty Friedan wrote an article for Harper’s Magazine on the coming of a new ice age. Her article was a review of a recent theory by Maurice Ewing and William Donn which held that climate warming could lead to a breakup of the Arctic ice pack.”
James Rodger Fleming, Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 131-32.
[1]States Mann, “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.”
On episode 109 of The Climate Realism Show, we look at two recent polls that show climate change opinion is sharply waning in its perception as a threat to the public. At the same time, ESG funds have essentially collapsed as investors pull their money.
On episode 109 of The Climate Realism Show, we look at two recent polls that show climate change opinion is sharply waning in its perception as a threat to the public. At the same time, ESG funds have essentially collapsed as investors pull their money.
Joining us to discuss these issues is Donald Kendal deputy director of Heartland’s Socialism Research Center, and video host of the In the Tank weekly podcast.
Plus, host Anthony Watts, The Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken analyze this downturn. And, as always, we have the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET (12 p.m. CT) for the kind of climate realism you can’t find anywhere else, and join the chat to get your questions answered, too.
The Heartland Institute’s Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Chris Talgo, and Linnea Lueken present episode 448 of the In The Tank Podcast. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink was featured at a recent World Economic Forum event where he spoke on the subject of future investments.
The Heartland Institute’s Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Chris Talgo, and Linnea Lueken present episode 448 of the In The Tank Podcast. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink was featured at a recent World Economic Forum event where he spoke on the subject of future investments. Toward the end of the panel, Fink trashed wind and solar as viable options to meet our economy’s growing appetite for cheap, reliable energy. Are these statements by Fink just an anomaly in the larger climate alarmist movement or do they signal a potential shift in global energy trends?
PRIMARY TOPIC – BLACKROCK CEO BURIES WIND AND SOLAR AT WEF EVENT?
The Wall Street Journal recently published an incisive analysis regarding the economic and operational challenges of adopting electric trucks in the logistics sector. The report, based on a study by Ryder Systems, casts doubt on the prevailing enthusiasm for zero-emission vehicles in the freight industry and presents a detailed critique of the assumptions underpinning this shift.
Electric trucks, especially the heavier models, present a substantial economic challenge compared to traditional diesel vehicles. Robert Sanchez, CEO of Ryder, highlights a significant disparity in the cost-effectiveness of these vehicles: “The economics just don’t work for most companies”. This statement reflects the broader industry reluctance to invest in electric trucks, which, despite their potential environmental benefits, fail to offer a viable economic case under current conditions.
The WSJ article points out that even with the promise of cleaner operations, the actual numbers tell a different story:
“As trucks get heavier the difference in operating costs between battery-electric vehicles and diesel trucks grows more pronounced,”
The article provides a state-specific analysis, revealing how transitioning to electric trucks could significantly increase operational costs. For instance, converting a fleet in California to electric would raise annual operating costs by 56%, amounting to an additional $3.4 million. Such figures pose serious concerns about the impact on a company’s bottom line and the broader economic effects, such as potential contributions to inflation and heightened transportation costs:
“Converting a typical mixed fleet of 25 commercial vehicles, including about 10 heavy-duty trucks, from diesel to battery power in California would raise a fleet’s annual operating costs 56%, or $3.4 million a year. The same transition in Georgia would raise annual operating costs 67%, or $3.7 million.”
The Reality of Long-term Savings and Operational Efficiency
The supposed long-term savings from lower fuel and maintenance costs are frequently cited by proponents of electric trucks. Yet, the WSJ report questions these claims, noting the lack of sufficient operational history to validate the durability and cost-efficiency of electric trucks over time. Additional operational hurdles exacerbate these concerns:
“Battery-electric trucks cost about three times as much to purchase as a diesel rig… Truckers say battery-electric truck operations are too difficult to set up and too expensive and inefficient to run,”
Amid these economic challenges, regulatory pressures are increasing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, has introduced mandates for greater sales of battery-electric trucks. Similarly, California’s aggressive regulations aim to fast-track the adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. However, these governmental directives meet resistance from within the trucking industry, where many argue the financial burden is too great:
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently released a rule effectively mandating that manufacturers sell more battery-electric trucks by the end of the decade,”
Highlighting the tension between regulatory ambitions and practical economic capacities.
Conclusion
The Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the high costs associated with electric trucks in the logistics sector brings critical scrutiny to the practical and economic viability of the transition being shoved onto industry by the current administration. It challenges the assumption that environmental benefits automatically justify significant investments in new technologies, urging a reevaluation of whether the push for “sustainability”, whatever that might be, may be outpacing the reality of current technological and economic conditions. As the industry confronts these challenges, it becomes clear that any transition must be grounded in a realistic appraisal of costs, benefits, and scalable feasibility.
Concern about climate change continues to fall across many polled territories around the world. Interestingly, it is often the young, who have been subject to relentless fear mongering all their lives, who have started to lose interest in a narrative informing them that the scientific process is ‘settled’ in the interests of the Net Zero collectivisation.
Concern about climate change continues to fall across many polled territories around the world. Interestingly, it is often the young, who have been subject to relentless fear mongering all their lives, who have started to lose interest in a narrative informing them that the scientific process is ‘settled’ in the interests of the Net Zero collectivisation. Poll after poll is pointing to falling concern. The latest from New Jersey-based Monmouth University shows a dramatic fall over three years from among those aged 18-34 who believe climate change – generally understood as human-caused climate change – is a “very serious problem”. An even bigger fall is reported in the same age group of those who support Government climate change action.
As the graph below shows, the percentage in the age group 18-34 who think climate change is a very serious problem has fallen from 67% to 50% since 2021. Significant falls are also reported across all age groups. The overall proportion of Americans who believe climate change is a very serious problem has fallen below half for the first time since 2018. The fall in support for Government action, at a time when the Biden Administration is forcing future generations to pay for a deficit-busting green boondoggle, is also dropping sharply, and is down among the young from an 82% high in 2018 to 62% today.
Other polls have pointed to declining support for the notion that humans control the climate and burning hydrocarbons is leading to Thermogeddon. Last year a poll conducted by a group within the University of Chicago found that belief in humans causing all or most climate change had slumped in America to 49% from the 60% level recorded just five years ago. Similar falls have been recorded elsewhere, with a December 2022 IPSOS survey covering two thirds of the world’s population revealing that nearly four people in every 10 believed climate change was mainly due to natural causes.
All these polls will be alarming alarmists with a suspicion that constant wolf-calling is starting to lose effect among the jaded young. Climate change is becoming so last Tuesday. The world has many problems to be solved, but bad weather is just a fact of life. It doesn’t take massive intelligence to see that none of the predictions over the last 40 years of impending climate collapse have come to pass. The fear is that the young see Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, claiming the world is “boiling”, and far from being scared witless and not having babies, they wonder how such a plonker rose so high in international politics.
In America, the issue of climate change is divided along party lines. Nearly all Democrats (92%) believe climate change is happening, while only 51% of Republicans “accept climate change as a reality”, claims the Monmouth team. The wording here can be questioned since in the interests of simplicity it seems to ascribe climate change to just one human cause. As a result, it suggests that for 49% of Republicans, climate change is not real, seemingly ignoring the fact that climate change is real and caused by natural variation. A later question found 31% of those polled thought climate change was caused equally by humans and natural variation. This is also too simplistic to mean very much. Nevertheless, it was found that over the last three years, the support for the notion that climate change was “very serious” fell from 85% to 77% among Democrats, from 21% to just 13% among Republicans, and from 56% to 43% among Independents.
What can be deduced from this and other polling evidence is that Republicans are much more sceptical about the unsubstantiated claim that humans control the climate thermostat and that as a result some great catastrophe is looming. The Chicago survey asked a similar question on climate change but allowed for a number of options around human and natural causes. When it added the ‘mostly’ or ‘entirely’ caused by humans replies together, it found lower levels of support than the Monmouth results. Overall support since 2018 has fallen away from 61% in 2018 to 49%. Republican support has remained stable at its low level of 33%, while Democrat support is down 12 points to 60%.
The real concern in green circles around the world is that if the Republican Donald Trump wins the November U.S. presidential election, Net Zero, on a federal level at least, is dead in the water for the next four years. And if it is dead in the water in the U.S., while China, India and Russia continue paying mere lip service to the project, it is dead in the water, full stop.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
You must be logged in to post a comment.