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.
Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.
If CO2 isn’t endangering lives, legally, there’s no reason to outlaw oil and gas
Marc Morano of ClimateDepot calls this the “holy grail” of the climate agenda. Most of the climate policies of the United States depend on “the Endangerment Finding”– so President Trump asked the new EPA head to look closely at it. This is the “finding” in 2009 that CO2 endangers the public, and that in turn means the EPA must regulate this “pollutant”. Thereby becoming the perfect excuse to allow the bureaucrats to regulate cars, trucks, planes, gas stoves and anything from hair dryers to home insulation.
The new EPA head just finished his 30 day consideration and recommends the Whitehouse rewrite the past conclusion entirely.
Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet says undoing the Endangerment Finding …” would mean full-blown warfare against all things climate.” She describes how the entire bureaucratic edifice crumbles if CO2 is not a pollutant:
If the Administration were to reverse the endangerment finding, greenhouse gases would no longer need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Presumably, EPA would then simply move to revoke all of Biden’s major climate rules regulating cars, trucks, power plants, and oil and gas operations. As Joe Goffman, former Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation under President Biden, told Politico, recently, “taking away the 2009 endangerment finding would really make it almost a virtual formality to take down all the greenhouse rules for CO2 and methane,”
This great news, of course, blows some minds
From Bloomberg
“There is a lot of shocking stuff happening now, but to completely deny climate change and any federal obligation to control the pollution that’s driving it would be shocking and irresponsible,” said David Doniger, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Environmental advocates contend it also would be illegal. “Climate pollution is air pollution, and it is fueling a crisis,” said Margie Alt, director of the Climate Action Campaign. “There is no scientific basis – none – to claim otherwise.
Ann Carlson of LegalPlanet explains, bless her, that the EPA did all “the Science” and public consultation (after twenty years of indoctrination) to get this endangerment “finding” through in the first places so if Trump doesn’t follow the same process, they’ll get sued. She’s sure Trump would lose “because the science is… overwhelming”. Clearly, she has no idea ten times as many people die of the cold, (or even twenty times as many) or that the entire causal “evidence” for the dangers of CO2 depends on models that pretend the Sun is just a big light-globe. These models ignore the solar-electric field, the magnetic field, UV changes and the solar wind, and then, surprise, get nearly every prediction wrong.
Believers are telling themselves all kinds of lies at the moment just to cope with the shock. They’re hoping that individual states will still be able to make self defeating climate rules, they’re warning it could take years for the EPA to get through the proper rule-making process. They’re comforting themselves that other legal doors will open if this one closes: even though teenagers might not be able to sue essential corporations for doing their jobs, “it could revive public nuisance laws” against oil producers. Praise the Lord!
Trump should not only set up a scientific group to investigate whether CO2 causes any harm, he should follow the evidence all the way. If the scientists consider the total cost-benefits of CO2, they’d easily show CO2 is an asset that feeds the poor, restores the forests, and improves life on Earth. Obviously, those companies and countries emitting CO2 are doing the world a favor. Coal, oil and gas plants should get tax deductions for their contributions.
In the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident, then-Senator Joe Biden voted for a “temporary pause” on reactor permitting, despite no credible evidence of public harm from radiation. Although the measure failed, the nuclear industry never recovered from this political overreaction based on exaggerated fears. Forty-five years later, President Biden has unilaterally ordered a “temporary pause” on the permitting of liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals – a move the Washington Post editorial board aptly labeled “a win for political symbolism, not the climate.”
In the aftermath of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident, then-Senator Joe Biden voted for a “temporary pause” on reactor permitting, despite no credible evidence of public harm from radiation. Although the measure failed, the nuclear industry never recovered from this political overreaction based on exaggerated fears. Forty-five years later, President Biden has unilaterally ordered a “temporary pause” on the permitting of liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminals – a move the Washington Post editorial board aptly labeled “a win for political symbolism, not the climate.”
So, why are Biden’s usual allies, including some Congressional Democrats, taking the gas industry’s side? Mainly, because the decision harms the U.S. geopolitical and economic security – and climate efforts. With anti-nuclearism in our rearview, the president should know better than to listen to degrowth-oriented environmentalists who cheered the pause.
Long before LNG met resistance from mainstream green groups, nuclear energy was their primary target. They amplified fears about radiation and leveraged celebrity influence to communicate these supposed risks to young people. For example, Jane Fonda’s movie The China Syndrome, which depicts a reactor meltdown burning through the earth’s core, was released just days before Three Mile Island, fueling public confusion. Despite no evidence of public radiation harm, the reputational damage slowed the industry’s growth. Over the next few decades, coal replaced reactors that would have been built, and emissions accelerated until peaking in the mid-2000s when plentiful natural gas led to significant decarbonization.
Biden’s LNG export terminal pause resulted from a similar campaign including many of the same organizations recycling the same tactics. Fonda was even involved, this time utilizing TikTok to reach Gen Z audiences. Because they have significant White House access and political capital in an election year, Biden took their bait and went to war with fossil fuels to appease young, progressive voters.
Part of the reason for the widespread skepticism of the pause is that it relies on highly dubious findings in one non-peer-reviewed study by a highlycontroversial professor with a history of publishing discredited reports on methane. It suggests that other analyses, including theDepartment of Energy’s, underreport methane leakage by such a large margin that LNG is actually worse than coal for the climate. It’s oddly similar to arguments that anti-nuclear activists made in the 1970s, like when a Sierra Club executiveclaimed: “Unlike nuclear, which risks long-term genetic damage, coal’s impacts won’t be felt generations from now.” In both cases, coal was the preferred resource for these activists.
In reality, the U.S. oil and gas sector already has the world’s lowest methane leakage rates and is leading efforts to track, capture, and monetize fugitive methane innovatively. Leakage declined by 28% between 2019 and 2021 alone. As Freeport LNG’s Chairman Michael Smith emphasized at CERA Week, “Every single one of us makes our money selling methane. We don’t want to release it.”
Conversely, Russia, the world’s second largest producer of natural gas, has little concern over methane leaks. The Department of Energy study Howarth claims to debunk found Russia’s methane emissions rate 4-5 times higher than U.S. LNG’s 1% level, though still cleaner than coal. The Kremlin’s lax standards also played a major role in the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. At Three Mile Island, higher standards and risk aversion protocols inherent in a capitalist system prevented the accident from turning into a catastrophe – though hysteria still caused investment flight to coal.
If idealistic politicians succeed in removing U.S. LNG from the global market, it will lead to the double whammy of increased coal and dirtier natural gas from emissions-agnostic countries like Russia. Like nuclear, the LNG export sector is highly vulnerable to political disruptions. A rejected export terminal, much like a failed reactor, can erode investor confidence enough to reverse the industry’s momentum. A German state-owned gas importer,SEFE, has already turned to Russia in response to the pause, and other committed buyers likeMalaysia are reportedly getting cold feet. These developments are neither good for global security nor the climate.
While it may seem far-fetched that this pause could pose an existential threat to U.S. LNG exports, one need only look back to 1979 when few could have foreseen that only two new nuclear reactors would be built in the subsequent 45 years. Now that we realize how regressive that was in the fight against climate change, the president has no excuse to repeat the same mistakes.
Patrick Hynes is a fellow with ConservAmerica.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
I have a big problem with the anti-beef push. In a world where just under 800 million people go to bed hungry every night, attacking the supply of food in the name of the alleged climate emergency in my opinion should be viewed as a crime against humanity.
“… Replacing beef with a different protein — even for just one meal — can cut the emissions footprint of a person’s diet that day by as much as half. …”
One Simple Change to Reduce Your Climate Impact? Swap Out Beef
Replacing beef with a different protein — even for just one meal — can cut the emissions footprint of a person’s diet that day by as much as half.
Next time you’re out for lunch, try playing a little game: Without looking it up, can you find the most and least climate-friendly options on the menu?
Unlike a meal’s price, the greenhouse-gas footprint of food isn’t typically spelled out. But you don’t need to ask a climate scientist to find out either. There’s one simple trick for identifying the highest impact item on almost any menu: If there’s beef, that’s probably it.
…
“You don’t have to become a vegan to have a big impact on your carbon footprint,” says Diego Rose, a professor and director of the nutrition program at Tulane University. “You just have to swap out beef.”
…
Beef’s footprint is especially outsized. For one, there are roughly 1.5 billion cows on the planet. About 13 million square kilometers (3.2 billion acres) of land is used to raise all that cattle, along with buffalo, and their food — one-quarter of all land used for agriculture, according to a 2017 paper in Global Food Security. Then there’s the methane. Cows and other ruminants have a unique digestive system that allows them to turn grass into fuel, but in the process their special gut bacteria releases methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term.
…
“In the US, most of us eat more beef than what’s considered healthy for us,” says Stephanie Roe, a climate and energy lead scientist at the nonprofit World Wildlife Fund. “So that’s low-hanging fruit because then we can improve our health outcomes in addition to environmental ones.”
There is a reason cowboys herded cows in the old West, and why the African Maasai and many other peoples still do, and why beef cattle are chosen when other crops would in theory produce a much higher yield per acre.
Cattle can be raised in harsh regions which are far too unforgiving for other farm produce.
The suggestion raising beef is taking far more land than other food production, with the implicit suggestion that land dedicated to beef production could be repurposed for other produce, in my opinion verges on a lie by omission. I’m sure some cattle land could be used for other purposes, but a lot of it couldn’t.
In places where beef production is the only option, abandoning beef would mean abandoning food – dramatically reducing the total food available for people to eat.
Even in places where other food choices are available, the anti-beef push could impact food supplies. Stopping beef production would not automatically equate to increased production of other food.
As of 2024, data on natural changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level
do not show any statistically significant difference to historical records.
Roy Gilbert exposes the fundamental mistaken thinking regarded global warming/climate change. His Spectator Australia article is Conceptual Error in Climate Change Analysis. H/T John Ray Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
It is often said that the ‘science is in on climate change’. Is it? We should always adhere to the principle of the ‘working hypothesis’ and have an open mind on scientific questions no matter how well-recognised the researchers are. In the study of science, there is always the chance new information can come along to cause a rethink.
A common error in problem-solving and policy development is to confuse a technical strategy for a desired client outcome.
Our Climate Change Minister could be accused of this. Reducing emissions is a ‘strategy’, not the fundamental desired client outcome. With the mission ‘to reduce carbon emissions’ by increasing renewable energy, the way to assess performance is to concentrate on measuring emission reduction, and then to follow this up with how quickly the renewables are built and their cost (wind farms, solar panels, transmission lines).
Instead of the current strategy-driven mission, a fundamental client outcome statement would be: ‘To protect against, and where possible, prevent damage from extreme off-trend fluctuations in climate.’ How would you go about managing your program using this mission statement?
First, you gather accurate temperature, rainfall, and weather measurements. They are the valid and fundamental ‘outcome’ measures – not data on CO2 emissions. If there is an undeniable and dangerous increase in temperature and rainfall, more cyclones, and a clear and unabated rise in sea level, then the possible cause must be thoroughly identified. Depending on the answer, you would adopt appropriate mitigation strategies, or strategies that adapt to weather patterns and temperature levels.
Another principle of problem-solving is to map out the total picture and not be driven by ideology. The Climate Change Minister should consider possible causes other than human-induced emissions. It was announced in April 2023 that coronal cones 20 times larger than Earth have been discovered and may cause a massive outburst of energy from the sun. What could be the implications for our planet? Ask solar physicists.
Chief scientist in applied helio-physics at John Hopkins, Ian Cohen, has suggested that solar storms could take out satellites, cut power and shut down the internet. In 1972 a solar storm caused 4,000 magnetically sensitive mines in water off Vietnam to detonate. Earth is said to be entering a period of peak activity as part of an eleven-year cycle. It is suggested this potentially could be more violent than the solar cycles of the past three decades. Now that would be something for climate scientists to really worry about…
With respect to the world’s temperature, there are several sources that claim to present the precise figure. One says the 2023 average global temperature was 1.45c above the 1950-90 average. Another says since 1880, Earth’s temperature has increased by 0.08c. Another says during the last 50 years the increase is 0.13c. To the unscientific mind, these temperatures do not appear to be verging on catastrophic boiling us all to death.
As of 2024, data on natural changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level do not show any statistically significant difference to historical records.
There are respected scientists who questionthe current climate orthodoxy. Physicist Prof. William Happer of Princeton University and Prof. Richard Lindzen, Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT have argued science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradicts the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They state reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinion, or manipulated data.
In July 2023, the International Monetary Fund cancelled a planned talk on climate change by 2022 Nobel physicist John Clauser when they learned he had stated publicly: ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events. The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation.’ Clauser pointed out that the US Environmental Protection Authority has charts that show a heatwave Index going back to 1895, showing heatwaves were more common before the 1960s and especially in the 1930s.
In addition to these physicists, there are eminent Australian geologists who challenge the CO2 cause theory. Emeritus Prof. Ian Pilmer of the University of Melbourne, and Prof. Michael Asten of Monash University, have argued that throughout the history of the planet, there have been long periods of major change in climate due to natural forces. This would indicate recent human-based emissions may not be the important factor that we have been led to believe.
With respect to measuring emissions (nitrous oxide and methane), there is an expectation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would have collected accurate data. Then one reads an independent 2023 report of these greenhouse gas emissions from farm dams in Australia’s irrigation regions, that the measurements had been massively over-estimated by the IPCC by 4 to 5 per cent.
To add further confusion to the issue, a 2023 research paper submitted to the European Physical Journal Plus claimed climate science has become ‘highly politicised’. Italian scientists analysed long-term data on heat, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and ecosystem productivity, and found no clear trend of extreme events. The statements by these scientists would appear worthy of examination. Unfortunately, comments to the publisher by other climate scientists caused the withdrawal of the article.
If activists are correct, and if temperatures and rainfall start to show a significant increase without any influence from natural factors such as the sun or outer atmospheric disturbances, the second ‘outcome’ mission opens your mind to several strategies that could be compared against each other on cost and effectiveness – renewables, outer space satellites capturing solar energy and transmitting to Earth, small nuclear, carbon capture, examine possibility of amalgamating carbon and turning it into a useful product, lower emission coal-fired power stations, hydro, hydrogen fuel cells, a scientific search for a predator for carbon other than trees (or the planting of more trees), and so on.
A valid client ‘outcome’ statement encourages you not to jump to a conclusion in the initial stages of critical thinking about the cause of any global warming.
If you make a mistake at that point, there are significant productivity implications. Governments could waste a significant amount of money (a catastrophic amount) on a less than optimum strategy. Rather than relying almost entirely on climate scientists who concentrate on carbon emissions, a politician with a mind focused on validity could bring together an inter-disciplinary team – climate scientists, nuclear physicists, solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, examine the moon’s behaviour, plant technologists, oceanographers, geologists, volcanologists, botanists, bushfire specialists and so on. Has any national government followed this approach? Has any Minister for Energy, in any country, expanded their vision beyond their own narrow ideology is a potential danger to their country…?
There are very obvious reasons why some politicians and many rich investors in renewable energy would oppose a serious questioning of the renewable strategy and switching to nuclear instead. If small nuclear was introduced – as is being done in many countries – it would make current renewable energy strategies redundant. That would mean all the billions of dollars spent on wind and solar would have been a waste of money. We wouldn’t need them. Admitting that would be far too embarrassing for any ideological politician and far too financially damaging to any rich wind farm investor obtaining government grants.
If the Sun is found to be the fundamental cause of the problem (variations in energy output, massive infrequent solar flares, and/or variations in distance between Earth and Sun), or if there is a slight tilting of the Earth on its axis, or the Moon changes position, or even disturbance further out in our solar system, you would evaluate adaptation strategies.
It seemed reasonable for some people to assume the vast flooding in 2022 could be attributed to human-induced climate change. There is however, a different possibility … nature. Environment analyst Graham Lloyd explained.
‘The meteorological processes at play are well understood. Three consecutive La Nina weather patterns have left the eastern seaboard soaked and prone to flooding. Triple La Ninas have happened four times in the Bureau of Meteorology’s 120-year record … The Southern Annular Mode is a climate driver that can influence rainfall and temperature. Although wet, the latest BoM figures show that 2022 was the ninth wettest year on record (not the wettest).’
When the above material, stressing the need to examine the total picture in any critical thinking, was shown to a high school Principal, to a high school science teacher and to an environmental engineer, they were all surprised and quite critical that one would want to show this to students. Annoyed actually. One was emphatic…
‘Why waste the students’ time having them look at irrelevant issues? We KNOW what the problem is. It is CO2 emissions. And we KNOW what the solution is. It is 100 per cent renewables.’
My answer to them was:
‘The difference between you and me, is that you want to tell the students WHAT to think. I want to teach them HOW to think. I want them to understand insightful thinking. Not to be indoctrinated’. You can be the judge as to who is on the right track.
The Biden administration proposed a new regulation Friday that would impose fines on oil and gas companies for methane emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.
The Biden administration proposed a new regulation Friday that would impose fines on oil and gas companies for methane emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced.
The policy would require companies to pay a penalty of $900 per every ton of methane emitted beyond limits established by the government starting this year, with the cost for each ton above the government’s thresholds increasing to $1,200 in 2025 and jumping to $1,500 in 2026 and beyond, according to the EPA. While the agency touts the proposal as a tool to reduce methane emissions, energy producers have slammed it for adding complexity to the regulatory environment and potentially driving up energy costs for consumers.
“Today’s proposal, when finalized, will support a complementary set of technology standards and historic resources from the Inflation Reduction Act, to incentivize industry innovation and prompt action,” Michael Regan, the EPA’s administrator, said of the proposal. “We are laser-focused on working collectively with companies, states and communities to ensure that America leads in deploying technologies and innovations that aid in the development of a clean energy economy.” (RELATED: Biden Admin Kicks Off 2024 By Unleashing $1 Billion Worth Of New Regulations)
‘Outrageous’: EPA Agents Are Flying Helicopters Over Texas Oil Fields To Crack Down On Methane Emissions From Drillinghttps://t.co/vg5JmFJ7jP
The proposal would become the first direct federal tax on emissions in the U.S. if it is finalized and implemented as planned, according to The New York Times. Congress approved the policy in the Inflation Reduction Act, President Joe Biden’s signature climate bill, which also contains $1 billion in grants and subsidies intended to improve methane leak detection.
The EPA estimates that methane drives one third of the warming occurring today and identifies the energy sector as the most significant industrial source of methane emissions in the country, according to its announcement. Environmentalistsmalign natural gas production in particular as a source of methane emissions, but natural gas burns more cleanly in comparison to other fossil fuels, such as coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
“As the world looks to U.S. energy producers to provide stability in an increasingly unstable world, this punitive tax increase is a serious misstep that undermines America’s energy advantage,” Dustin Meyer, the senior vice president of Policy, Economics and Regulatory Affairs for the American Petroleum Institute, said of the proposal. “While we support smart federal methane regulation, this proposal creates an incoherent, confusing regulatory regime that will only stifle innovation and undermine our ability to meet rising energy demand.”
The policy is a de facto “natural gas tax” that will almost certainly drive up costs for Americans, Larry Behrens, the communications director for Power The Future, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. Shortly after House Speaker Mike Johnson took over as the speaker of the House in October, dozens of Republicans in his caucus wrote to him urging that he endeavor to repeal the enabling statute behind the regulation that the EPA proposed Friday.
“It’s a proposal that follows the direction set by Congress in the Inflation Reduction Act, and we are looking forward to comments and input from industry and the public before finalizing it,” an EPA spokesperson told the DCNF, adding that the “estimated energy cost increases are minimal.”
Friday’s proposal complements a December 2023 EPA proposal for methane detection requirements, which independent oil and gas companies strongly oppose because the increased compliance costs would put them at a disadvantage relative to the major firms.
Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from an EPA spokesperson.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Methane, the principal component of natural gas, is viewed by environmental extremists as one of the greatest dangers to planet Earth. The anti-carbon-dioxide crowd has long targeted humans and cows. Today, even biodiversity-enhancing beavers are also labeled as illegal immigrant planet killers.
Methane, the principal component of natural gas, is viewed by environmental extremists as one of the greatest dangers to planet Earth. The anti-carbon-dioxide crowd has long targeted humans and cows. Today, even biodiversity-enhancing beavers are also labeled as illegal immigrant planet killers.
According to Desirée Plata, Director of the MIT Methane Network, “If methane emissions from natural gas are on the high end of current estimates, natural gas may be no improvement over coal at all” even though the switch from coal to natural gas is typically credited for lowering U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
The fear of carbon dioxide – vital to plant growth and thus to human life – stems from the curious desire to stop all future changes to the Earth’s climate. A worldwide campaign demands that “Net Zero by 2050” be (as Al Gore says) “the central organizing principle of civilization.”
Humans have for millennia used coal, and now oil and natural gas, for heating and cooking – and for many other purposes (including transportation). But fossil fuels are the chief villain to those clamoring for an all-electric society, reliant primarily on wind turbines and solar arrays, that cannot provide fuel and electricity equitably for eight billion people.
The anti-carbon crowd’s newest villain is Castor canadensis, otherwise known as the North American beaver. This methane producer, we are told, must be stopped from destroying Alaska. And, we are told, “beavers are on the move in northern Canada too.” Imagine if Russia began reintroducing European beavers (Castor fiber) to Siberia! [Oops! They are.]
What is the beavers’ crime? The ecofreaks tell us they are causing MORE climate change simply by building dams in areas formerly too bleak for occupation.
As chronicled in a study from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, beavers are taking advantage of shorter winters in the Arctic to move north. Over the past 40 years, beavers have built dams that created 11,000 new ponds. These ponds cause releases of methane, as flooded vegetation rots and spreading water thaws the surrounding permafrost.
The study’s principals admit they have no idea of the long-term impacts from this beaver “invasion” but agree it must be stopped to save the planet. Without drastic action (not including a revival of trapping), lead author Ken Tape says, “this entire area, the north slope of Alaska, will be colonized by beavers by 2100.”
To accomplish this mammoth task – the removal of beavers from the Arctic – there will have to be a massive campaign to denigrate an animal long cherished in story and song.
In C.S. Lewis’ classic tale, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, Mr. and Mrs. Beaver rescue and advise the four children who have unwittingly entered Narnia and face death from the evil witch. Their very arrival brings about a warming of the Narnian permafrost. Even here, beavers partnered with humans to “warm” the planet.
Other beavers, too, can now be seen as villains. That old cavity fighter, Bucky Beaver, who for years did battle with D. K. Germ as a shill for Ipana toothpaste, has long been retired, and even Beaver Cleaver reruns are rarely seen today. But there is a new evil Buc-ee Beaver selling gasoline at stations with dozens of pumps each.
[Leave It to Beaver has been accused (or, rather, touted) as a “medieval morality play” and a response to Communism’s disdain for the nuclear family. The writers, says author Michael De Sapio, delivered a message that “family is a refuge from the corruption of the world.” And as David Brooks tells us, the very concept of the nuclear family “was a mistake” that must not, and cannot, be repeated. Bad Beaver!]
But hold on a minute. Even these Arctic researchers admit that the “humble beaver” is a highly skilled “environmental engineer” who, in the face of increasing wildfires and droughts, is an ally in the “fight against climate change.”
As environmental science professor Emily Fairfax explains, “They build these dams, which slow the water down, they dig canals that spread the water out, and ultimately they just give it time to sink into the earth like a big old sponge.”
In the United Kingdom, beavers were hunted to near-extinction 400 years ago for their fur, meat, and castoreum but have been reintroduced in recent years. Robin McKie, science editor at The Guardian, reports that “few animals could beat the beaver as a restorer of blighted landscapes.” Matt Holden of the Devon Wildlife Trust says, “In the UK, we have lost more than 75 percent of our wetlands, and beavers can bring some of that back – by building dams.”
McKie says the humble rodents’ ecological prowess means they have a “crucial role to play in helping the nation revitalize its biodiversity and find solutions to the impacts of climate change.” And University of Exeter professor Richard Brazier adds, “Beavers can play a major role in restoring landscapes, cleaning up polluted waterways and helping the fortunes of other threatened species.”
To Brazier, there’s just one problem. The UK’s Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) “has been sitting on an agreed scheme to introduce [beavers] across England and seems to be refusing to take action.”
Worse, says Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, “Unfortunately, the environment secretary [Thérèse Coffey] … even seems to be considering a potentially disastrous removal of beavers’ protected status, a further sign that this government is weak on environmental issues.” [The anti-beaver Coffey was replaced in November.]
In the northern climates of Russia, Alaska, and Canada, growing seasons are getting longer, increasing plant (and tree) productivity and providing new planting opportunities. Beavers play a role in extending growing seasons. The Trudeau government, however, warns that “related changes in pest species, fire regimes, droughts, and other climate extremes may limit the extent to which these gains are realized.”
Even the World Economic Forum says that, “Beavers are showing that their impacts can offer added levels of ecosystem resilience to a changing climate that we would be wise to embrace.” The WEF also says that natural disturbance caused by beavers can create floodplain woodlands that are wilder and wetter, allowing greater biodiversity – and can even improve water quality.
So what if their activities cause minor releases of methane gas from permafrost? [Were beavers responsible for melting the glaciers that once covered much of North America? Would Earth be better off with those lands still covered in ice? Or is “climate change” only bad today?]
Perhaps we should just trust that beavers broadening biodiversity in Alaska and other northern climes are in fact doing “the Lord’s work.” Maybe we should continue to celebrate the beaver as the environmental superstar the WEF even applauds – and not as “climate destroyers,” as some want to brand them.
Maybe the world would be a better place if we would all just brush our teeth along with Bucky, gas up at Buc-ee’s (which today even has EV charging stations at some locations), and find some old reruns of “Leave It to Beaver” or even curl up with Mr. and Mrs. Beaver to defeat the wicked witch and put an end to endless winter with no Christmas.
As part of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) methane is irrationally disparaged as part of the war on natural gas.
I am announcing my New Year’s resolution here in hopes of getting feedback and to spur others to provide their resolutions when we hear yet another climate talking point.
When I hear anyone say that methane is more potent than carbon dioxide because the radiative forcing produced is greater, I resolve to say that is only true in the laboratory on a molecular basis. In the atmosphere where it counts methane is not nearly as potent.
Discussion
I have heard the methane scare story all over but my primary concern is New York. As part of New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act) methane is irrationally disparaged as part of the war on natural gas. The rationale used always revolves around the potency of methane relative to CO2. To respond I have developed a page that consolidates reason why methane should not be vilified. I included the following arguments.
Clyde Spender explained that changes to radiation effects occur on a molecule-by-molecule basis in the atmosphere in an article here titled The Misguided Crusade to Reduce Anthropogenic Methane Emissions. The Climate Act tracks emissions by weight. In the atmosphere CO2 is more than two orders of magnitude more abundant than CH4 on a molecular basis. The Climate Act uses the global warming potential that estimates the mid-range, long-term warming potential of CH4 is 32 times that of CO2. However, that equivalence is for equal weights of the two gases! Using a molecular basis (parts per million-volume mole-fraction) to account for the lighter CH4 molecule reveals that the annual contribution to warming is a fraction of that claimed for CO2. Methane emissions on a molecular basis are increasing at a rate of 0.58% of CO2 increases. Therefore, changes in methane emissions have insignificant effects.
Andy May’s excellent summarization of Wijngaarden and Happer’s important paper “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases” takes a slightly different approach. He explains that the greenhouse effect of methane is not only related to the effect on longwave radiation itself but also the concentration in the atmosphere. Because the atmospheric concentration of methane is so small doubling concentrations change the “outgoing forcing by less than one percent”. In other words, doubling emissions or cutting emissions in half of methane will have no measurable effect on global warming itself.
Ralph B. Alexander describes another molecular consideration ignored in the Climate Act. Each greenhouse gas affects outgoing radiation differently across the bell-shaped radiation spectrum One of the reasons that CO2 is considered the most important greenhouse gas is that its effect coincides with the peak of the bell shape. On the other hand, the effect of CH4 is down in the tail of the bell shape. As a result, the potential effect of CH4 is on the order of only 20% of the effect of CO2.
The residence time of the two gases is different. Methane only has a lifetime of about 10-12 years in the atmosphere. The “consensus” science claim is that 80% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are removed within 300 years. (Note however that there are other estimates of much shorter residence times.) This means that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere. CH4 is converted to CO2 and is then counted in the monthly CO2 measurements as part of the CO2 flux. Because methane does not accumulate the same way as CO2 it should be handled differently. However, the Climate Act doubles down. Climate Act authors claimed it was necessary to use 20-year global warming potential (GWP) values because methane is estimated to be 28 to 36 greater than carbon dioxide for a 100-year time horizon but 84-87 greater GWP over a 20-year period.
Conclusion
I would love additional arguments why methane is not to be feared, would appreciate any corrections to my arguments, and would like to hear ways to edit my resolution for more impact.
It would also be useful to me and probably others if WUWT readers would provide similar resolutions for publication.
Happy New Year
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. More details on the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act are available here and an inventory of over 370 articles about the Climate Act is also available. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
The idiocy of this study and the entire genre of human behavior studies, whether it be meat eating, or owning pets, diverts attention from more pressing environmental issues and misallocates resources that could be better used elsewhere.
In a recent study published in PLOS ONE, titled “Measurements of methane and nitrous oxide in human breath and the development of UK scale emissions,” researchers have embarked on a quest that epitomizes the absurdity of current climate change discourse. This study, focusing on the emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from human breath, is not only a glaring example of scientific overreach but also a worrying indicator of the lengths to which climate alarmism is willing to go.
The study’s objective to investigate emissions from human breath in the UK population is fundamentally flawed. It operates under the assumption that these emissions are significant enough to warrant detailed analysis and inclusion in national greenhouse gas inventories. This premise is laughable at best, considering the minuscule percentage these emissions contribute to the overall greenhouse gas emissions.
The methodology employed in the study is questionable. Collecting 328 breath samples from 104 volunteers hardly constitutes a representative sample of the UK population. Furthermore, the study’s reliance on such a small sample size to draw conclusions about national-scale emissions is a classic case of over-extrapolation.
The study’s findings that 31% of participants were methane producers and that all participants emitted nitrous oxide are presented without adequate context. These results are portrayed as significant, yet they fail to consider the broader environmental impact. The fact that these emissions are stated contribute a mere 0.05% and 0.1% to the UK’s total emissions of CH4 and N2O, respectively, well below any margin of error in “national inventories” renders these findings insignificant.
The idiocy of this study and the entire genre of human behavior studies, whether it be meat eating, or owning pets, diverts attention from more pressing environmental issues and misallocates resources that could be better used elsewhere. This approach is indicative of a climate change narrative that is increasingly detached from reality. This study dangerously overstates the impact of human biological processes on climate change. By attributing environmental consequences to the act of breathing, it sets a precedent for viewing every aspect of human existence through the lens of environmental impact. This perspective is not only scientifically unsound but also potentially leads to dehumanizing policies.
The study, and the subsequent media coverage, lack a rational discourse on climate change. There is a conspicuous absence of critical analysis or questioning of the study’s relevance and implications. This omission is a testament to the current state of climate change discussions, where sensationalism often trumps scientific rigor.
The obsession with carbon, its compounds, and greenhouse gases as seen in this study’s focus on CH4 and N2O, is a misplaced concern. It reflects a narrow view of the complex and dynamic nature of Earth’s climate system. This fixation on carbon emissions is a distraction from more holistic environmental strategies.
The implications of this study for policy making are extremely concerning. It represents a step towards justifying intrusive and overreaching policies based on negligible environmental impacts. Such an approach is not only impractical but also poses a threat to personal freedoms which continue to be under attack daily and the dignity of human life.
In conclusion, this study is emblematic of the absurd lengths to which climate alarmism has gone. It represents a worrying trend in the climate debate, where even the most basic human functions are scrutinized for their environmental impact.
There is a dire need for a return to scientific sanity and rational discourse in addressing environmental issues. The path to a prosperous future does not lie in fear-mongering or exaggeration but in reasoned and rational scientific inquiry. I know we can’t expect that from the current crop of ideologically captured academics, but we must not stop working toward weeding out the rot in these institutions, even though it will likely take decades.
Aside from the usual commitments to reduce emissions (which continue to rise globally) and redistribute income (primarily from middle-to-lower earners to corrupt governments and well-heeled members of the climate cartel), attendees at the just-concluded COP28 conference in Dubai took a break from grazing at the many sumptuous receptions to call for farmers the world over to change their ways and practice “climate-friendly” agriculture.
Aside from the usual commitments to reduce emissions (which continue to rise globally) and redistribute income (primarily from middle-to-lower earners to corrupt governments and well-heeled members of the climate cartel), attendees at the just-concluded COP28 conference in Dubai took a break from grazing at the many sumptuous receptions to call for farmers the world over to change their ways and practice “climate-friendly” agriculture.
Cattle, sheep, and other farm animals now stand accused of endangering the planet by producing methane. Methane is routinely cited as a “potent” greenhouse gas, one which must be ruthlessly suppressed. Humans are being told, in no uncertain terms, that they must reduce, and eventually eliminate, their consumption of meat. Substitutes include lab meat and, everyone’s favorite, insects.
“A U.N. report last year held that about 7 gigatons of CO2 reductions – about as much emissions from global natural-gas combustion – would have to come from people eating meat,” Allysia Finley noted in her “Life Science” column in the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 4). “Livestock production accounts for about 11% to 17% of global greenhouse-gas emissions and about 32% of the world’s methane, which is 28 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Pound for pound of protein, beef production generates nearly 18 times as much greenhouse gas — and pork, four times as much – as tofu. Blame cow burps and manure.”
Livestock have joined SUVs, 18-wheelers, gas stoves, and gas furnaces on the ever-growing list of climate culprits. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) noticed that COP28 was “targeting farmers” and he is not moved by claims by environmentalists and climate officials who say change must come to the farm if the “climate crisis” is to be averted.
“I’m one farmer that’s not ready to do that,” he told E&E News (Dec. 6). Grassley, 88, is a hog farmer, and Iowa id the nation’s leader in hog production and in corn, grown mainly for livestock feed, as well as for ethanol. The Hawkeye State ranks in the top 10 for cattle, according to the Department of Agriculture.
Grassley rightly worries that government agencies will force companies to report their climate-related emissions throughout their supply chains, down to the farm level. This is exactly the approach taken by the Biden Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is working on a rule to require reporting on such “Scope 3” emissions from some publicly traded companies. Farms and ranches, of course, are not publicly traded companies, but they could be caught up in the regulatory web the Biden administration wants to throw over as many entities as it can.
Reduce the Supply and Increase the Cost
The Journal’s Finley sees what game is being played.
“The climate lobby knows that restricting people’s consumption of meat and dairy products would be unpopular, if not unconstitutional,” she points out. “Instead, they urge that governments use regulation, taxes, and subsidies to reduce the supply and increase the cost of meat, as they are doing with fossil fuels.”
While elites will continue to dine well under the regime being put in place, she notes, “The world’s poor will have to continue subsisting on nonnutritious gruel, just as they will have to do without cars, air conditioning, and refrigerators to achieve the global left’s net-zero nirvana.”
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is putting his money where the COP28 pledges are. He’s buying up tens of thousands of acres of prime U.S. farmland, not to plant crops to feed the world’s 8 billion people, but to use the land for projects that will reduce CO2 levels in the air. This will reduce agricultural productivity, but that is a problem for the poor, not the rich.
The US will lead a push at the COP28 climate summit to triple the amount of installed nuclear power capacity globally by 2050, marking a major turnaround for the controversial technology at the climate negotiations.
This move is aimed at reducing carbon emissions and combating climate change. The use of nuclear power as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels is highly debated, and there are concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants. However, proponents of nuclear energy argue that it is a necessary step to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change.
It remains to be seen how this pledge will be implemented and whether it will be successful in reducing carbon emissions.
What are the benefits of nuclear energy?How does nuclear power compare to other forms of renewable energy? What is COP28 and when will it take place?Let’s chatSee more
More than 20 nations including the United States called for a tripling of nuclear energy to drive down emissions on Saturday as world leaders assembled for a second day at UN climate talks in Dubai.
With smoggy skies in Dubai highlighting the challenges facing the world, other pledges are expected at the COP28 conference, including stepping up the deployment of renewable energy and cutting methane emissions.
The use of nuclear power as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels is highly controversial as environmental groups are concerned about safety and the disposal of nuclear waste.
But more than 20 nations ranging from the US to Ghana, Japan and several European countries said in a declaration that it plays a “key role” in the global goal of achieving carbon neutrality by mid-century.
They called for the tripling of nuclear energy capacity by 2050 from 2020 levels.
“We are not making the argument to anybody that this is absolutely going to be a sweeping alternative to every other energy source,” US climate envoy John Kerry said at the COP28 conference in Dubai.
“But we know because the science and the reality of facts and evidence tell us that you can’t get to net zero 2050 without some nuclear,” he said.
The other signatories include Britain, France, South Korea, Ukraine and the United Arab Emirates, but nuclear powers Russia and China did not sign up.
Environmental group 350.org said the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 in Japan highlighted the dangers of atomic power.
“While we appreciate that the Biden administration is looking to invest in alternatives to fossil fuels, we don’t have time to waste on dangerous distractions like nuclear energy,” said its North American director Jeff Ordower.
Methane ‘most destructive’
The declaration came as more world leaders took the stage at COP28 for the second day in a row, though US President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping are skipping the talks.
“We want to make the energy transition a global success story. It has to be now,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said.
“We all have to demonstrate the same determination to phase out fossil fuels, beginning with coal,” he said.
Nations at the COP28 talks are also expected to adopt a goal of tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.
The European Union first appealed for the new targets earlier this year, and the cause has since been taken up by COP28 hosts the UAE, then the G7 and G20 groups of nations.
The discussions about the renewables goal are closely linked to far more difficult negotiations about whether a final COP28 deal will commit nations to phasing down—or phasing out—all fossil fuels.
The United States and China, the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, and the UAE will host later Saturday a summit on methane emissions.
Methane, a non-CO2 gas, is the second largest contributor to climate change, accounting for around 16 percent of the warming effect.
China agreed for the first time to include all greenhouse gases in its next national climate pledge for 2035 in an agreement with the US last month.
But Beijing has stopped short of joining a US-backed Global Methane Pledge that has been signed by more than 150 countries and seeks to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030.
Methane “is the most destructive gas”, Kerry said.
At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero
At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero
Declaration Recognizes the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Keeping Within Reach the Goal of Limiting Temperature Rise to 1.5 Degrees Celsius
DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — During the World Climate Action Summit of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change today, more than 20 countries from four continents launched the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy.The Declaration recognizes the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and keeping the 1.5-degree goal within reach. Core elements of the declaration include working together to advance a goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity globally by 2050 and inviting shareholders of international financial institutions to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in energy lending policies.Endorsing countries include the United States, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom. The full text of the Declaration is below.
Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy 02 December 2023
Recognizing the key role of nuclear energy in achieving global net-zero greenhouse gas emissions / carbon neutrality by or around mid-century and in keeping a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach and achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7;
Recognizing the importance of the applications of nuclear science and technology that contribute to monitoring climate change and tackling its impacts, and emphasizing the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in this regard;
Recognizing that nuclear energy is already the second-largest source of clean dispatchable baseload power, with benefits for energy security;
Recognizing that analyses from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association show that global installed nuclear energy capacity must triple by 2050 in order to reach global net-zero emissions by the same year;
Recognizing that analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shows nuclear energy approximately tripling its global installed electrical capacity from 2020 to 2050 in the average 1.5°C scenario;
Recognizing that analysis from the International Energy Agency shows nuclear power more than doubling from 2020 to 2050 in global net-zero emissions by 2050 scenarios and shows that decreasing nuclear power would make reaching net zero more difficult and costly;
Recognizing that new nuclear technologies could occupy a small land footprint and can be sited where needed, partner well with renewable energy sources, and have additional flexibilities that support decarbonization beyond the power sector, including hard-to-abate industrial sectors;
Recognizing the IAEA’s activities in supporting its Member States, upon request, to include nuclear power in their national energy planning in a sustainable way that adheres to the highest standards of safety, security, and safeguards and its “Atoms4NetZero” initiative as an opportunity for stakeholders to exchange expertise;
Recognizing the importance of financing for the additional nuclear power capacity needed to keep a 1.5°C limit on temperature rise within reach;
Recognizing the need for high-level political engagement to spur further action on nuclear power;
The Participants in this pledge:
Commit to work together to advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050, recognizing the different domestic circumstances of each Participant;
Commit to take domestic actions to ensure nuclear power plants are operated responsibly and in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, and that fuel waste is responsibly managed for the long term;
Commit to mobilize investments in nuclear power, including through innovative financing mechanisms;
Invite shareholders of the World Bank, international financial institutions, and regional development banks to encourage the inclusion of nuclear energy in their organizations’ energy lending policies as needed, and to actively support nuclear power when they have such a mandate, and encourage regional bodies that have the mandate to do so to consider providing financial support to nuclear energy;
Commit to supporting the development and construction of nuclear reactors, such as small modular and other advanced reactors for power generation as well as wider industrial applications for decarbonization, such as for hydrogen or synthetic fuels production;
Recognize the importance of promoting resilient supply chains, including of fuel, for safe and secure technologies used by nuclear power plants over their full life cycles;
Recognize the importance, where technically feasible and economically efficient, of extending the lifetimes of nuclear power plants that operate in line with the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation, as appropriate;
Commit to supporting responsible nations looking to explore new civil nuclear deployment under the highest standards of safety, sustainability, security, and non-proliferation;
Welcomeand encourage complementary commitments from the private sector, non-governmental organizations, development banks, and financial institutions;
Resolve to review progress towards these commitments on an annual basis on the margins of the COP;
You must be logged in to post a comment.