A Conservative Energy Manifesto for Theresa May. She’ll Ignore It, Obviously…

conservative
Carl Court/WPA Pool/Getty

Suppose you were a Conservative leader hoping to win a stonking majority in your general election campaign, which of these two manifesto propositions do you think would win the most votes?

a) Our energy policy will remain in the clutches of a cabal of vested interests – rent-seeking, crony capitalist shysters; green ideologues with junk-science degrees in Gaia Studies from the University of East Anglia; eco-fascist lobby groups and NGOs; compromised scientists with their snouts in the trough; goose-stepping technocrats; really, really, really dim MPs – ensuring that the landscape continues to be blighted by an ever-greater-proliferation of shimmery solar panels and ginormous bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes.

We remain committed to the Climate Change Act which will cost the UK economy over £300 billion by 2030, costing each household £875 per annum; and also to the Levy Control Framework (LCF) which, combined with carbon taxes, cost the UK £9 billion in 2016 alone. Then we’ll pretend it’s the fault of the greedy energy companies by hammering them with a price cap – thus driving their share prices down (bad luck pensions and investors!), reducing competition and innovation, and signalling that we intend to be a meddling, interventionist government which has no truck with free market principles.

b) We want consumers and businesses to have the cheapest most reliable energy which causes the least damage to wildlife and the environment and which best guarantees Britain’s energy security. To this end we will scrap all market-distorting subsidies, declare a moratorium on renewables – as well as white elephant projects such as the Hinkley Point C Radioactive Money Pit and the even more lunatic proposed Swansea Tidal Lagoon project – and go all-out to exploit Britain’s superabundant shale gas reserves.

We will, furthermore, appoint a Secretary of State for Energy capable of explaining in ways even thick people can understand why it’s all OK, the baby polar bears aren’t going to drown, nor is Lancashire going to vanish into a crevice, nor are Britain’s gardens going to turn into deserts – despite all that toss you heard from the BBC’s resident Old Etonian eco-loon David Shukman on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning.

Well personally I’m going with b).

What we’re going to get with Theresa May’s Continuation Cameron Conservatives, unfortunately, is far likely to be closer to a).

This is a terrible shame for a number of reasons. As a lover of the British countryside, I’m most especially upset about the ongoing Scotlandification of Mid-Wales with more and more ugly wind farms. If ever you needed an argument against devolved government, there’s your case made for you. The troglodytes in the Welsh Assembly who allow this kind of destruction to pass are not fit to run a bath let alone a Principality.

But it’s also sad for political reasons. Prime Minister Theresa May has a once-in-several-generations opportunity successfully and unapologetically to demonstrate – without any credible threat from her excuse for an Opposition – that conservative principles of small government, personal responsibility, and free markets are genuinely the best way of creating a fairer, more prosperous and freer society.

And she’s about to blow it.

Still, here – if Theresa May wants it –  is an Energy Manifesto prepared for her today by the Global Warming Policy Forum.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Prince Charles Lecturing Donald Trump on Environment Won’t Have Fairytale Ending

There’s a danger that Charles’s environmental agenda could hijack ceremonial event between two great nations.

WHAT does the Prince of Wales most want to be when he finally grows up: A half-baked political activist or a halfway decent king?

He can’t be both, unfortunately, as we’ve just been reminded by the ludicrous playground fight he is trying to pick with the new President of the USA.

Prince Charles is upset that Donald Trump doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

But instead of just handing him a signed copy of his new Ladybird book Climate Change — perhaps with “HINT! HINT!” scrawled on it in red crayon — when Trump arrives on his state visit the Prince apparently wants to give him a lecture.

Prince Charles: future King or political activist?
(GETTY IMAGES) Prince Charles: future King or political activist?

This is likely to go down like a cup of cold sick.

Trump is not known for suffering fools gladly.

Read the rest at the Sun.

Shots Fired at Climate Skeptic’s Office During March for Science

Jessica Kourkounis/Getty

A leading skeptical scientist has reported that seven shots were fired at his workplace during the weekend’s Earth Day and March for Science events — likely as a threat and warning.

Dr Roy Spencer, meteorologist and noted climate skeptic at the University of Huntsville, Alabama, reports at his website that the shots were aimed at the office of his colleague and fellow sceptic, Dr John Christy:

A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH over the weekend.

All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building).

Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.

Our street is fairly quiet, so I doubt the shots were fired during Saturday’s march here. It was probably late night Saturday or Sunday for the shooter to have a chance of being unnoticed.

Maybe the “March For Science” should have been called the “March To Silence”.

Campus and city police say they believe the shots were fired from a passing car, based upon the angle of entry into one of the offices. Shell casings were recovered outside. The closest distance a passing car would have been is 70 yards away.

Both Spencer and Christy have long incurred the wrath of climate alarmists for the work they do debunking the junk science behind the global warming scare. What they have shown is that the “global warming” recorded by accurate satellite measurements is considerably less dramatic than that shown on the heavily adjusted earth surface temperature datasets preferred by climate alarmists.

Christy has made himself especially unpopular by testifying in Congress last month that the climate establishment is corrupt and untrustworthy and that a Red Team needs to be created to correct false “Consensus Science.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Realists Urge President Trump to Pull out of Suicidal, Expensive and Pointless Paris Agreement

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released a video urging President Trump to keep his campaign promise and withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

It features a speech President Trump gave in May 2016 explaining exactly why he wanted to pull out:

“This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over our energy and how much we use right here in America. No way!”

He adds:

“We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of the United States’ tax dollars to UN global warming programs”.

The video concludes:

Mr President. Don’t listen to the Swamp. Keep your promise. Withdraw from the Paris climate treaty. Send it to the Senate.

Now, however, he appears to be having second thoughts. His administration is reportedly divided on the issue, with White House insiders including Jared Kushner and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson arguing for the U.S. to remain inside the UN Paris agreement, supposedly in order to keep a “seat at the table.”

That would make it more expensive than a solid gold, diamond-encrusted seat at the table of King Croesus then. In fact, it would make it – at $65 trillion – the most expensive seat at the table in the history of the world.

And the $65 trillion, by the way, is a conservative estimate. This – according to calculations by Bjorn Lomborg – is the lower end estimate of how much it would cost the world if all the signatories of the Paris climate agreement stuck to their CO2 reduction commitments.

First, Bjorn Lomborg, accepting climate-change advocates’ assumptions about how much warming comes from carbon dioxide, showed in a peer-reviewed study that implementing all provisions of all signers to Paris would prevent only 0.306 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming by 2100.

What would it cost? Unofficial estimates by the United States, European Union, Mexico and China amount to $739-$757 billion per year.

Those parties account for about 80 percent of signatories’ emissions reduction pledges. Other pledges would have similar costs per unit, implying something in the range of $185-$189 billion.

All told, $924-$946 billion. Per year. Every year from 2030 to the end of the century. “And that’s if the politicians do everything right. If not, the real cost could double,” Mr. Lomborg said.

So, for $65-$132 trillion, we might — if the alarmists are right — reduce global average temperature by a third of one degree by 2100. That’s $212-$431 billion per thousandth of a degree of cooling.

But if you think things just couldn’t any more stupid, wait till you hear what the effect of pouring all that money down the drain on futile carbon-dioxide reductions schemes will have on the state of the Earth’s climate.

Here is what a peer-reviewed study by Bjorn Lomborg says.

It will, by 2030, reduce “global warming” by the almost immeasurable 0.048 degrees C.

And by the end of the century, it will reduce “global warming” by 0.17 degrees C.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

EPA’s Obama-Era Endangerment Finding a Disgrace to Science, Menace to Economy

Carolyn Kaster/AP

One of the most expensive, intrusive, and far-reaching pieces of legislation in recent U.S. history is a bad smell from the Obama era, motivated by a leftist, anti-capitalist agenda and based on the purest nonsense.

This is why two free market groups have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its CO2 Endangerment Finding. It was introduced (on Pearl Harbor Day in 2009) for political, not scientific reasons under the Obama Administration and is being used by green activists to hold the U.S. economy for ransom:

Two groups — Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) — claim EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding” should be updated with new evidence invalidating the agency’s previous claim greenhouse gases threatened public health.

Their concerns are understandable given that, as CHECC argues in its petition, the flimsy evidence on which EPA based its endangerment finding has now been proven false beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Endangerment Finding purported to find that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide constitute a “danger” to human health and welfare because of their effect in warming the atmosphere.

But there is no real-world evidence to support this conclusion, which derives purely from discredited computer models which have increasingly diverged from observed data:

When EPA released its CO2 endangerment finding in 2009, it used three lines of evidence to bolster its argument that greenhouse gases threatened human health through global warming.The crux of EPA’s argument rested on the existence of a “tropical hotspot” where global warming would be most apparent. That is, there should be enhanced warming in the tropical troposphere — the “fingerprint” of global warming.

However, according to a report produced last year by three respected scientists — James P Wallace III, John Christy, and Joe D’Aleo — this Tropical Hotspot (THS) “simply does not exist in the real world.”

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Change Is Real Because Bad Weather, Explains WMO

Climate Change is more real, and dangerous, and worrying than ever before because lots of bad weather has happened around the world.

Now that I have handily summarised the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) latest report — WMO Statement on the State of Global Climate in 2016 — you have no need to read it.

That’s because the report’s only intended function is as a propaganda device to prop up the global climate alarmist narrative.

You can tell this because of certain key phrases that have been embedded in the “Executive Summary.”

Phrases like:

Warming continued in 2016, setting a new temperature record of approximately 1.1 °C above the pre-industrial period…

…against a background of long-term climate change….

Severe droughts affected agriculture and yield production in many parts of the world, particularly in southern and eastern Africa and parts of Central America, where several million people experienced food insecurity and hundreds of thousands were displaced internally…

Detection and attribution studies have demonstrated that human influence on the climate has been a main driver behind the unequivocal warming of the global climate system…

Human influence has also led to significant regional temperature increases at the continental and subcontinental levels. Shifts of the temperature distribution to warmer regimes are expected to bring about increases in the frequency and intensity of extremely warm events.

But most of this stuff just comes from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which was published in 2014. What, exactly, is its relevance to a new report on last year’s weather?

Short answer: none — but this was never the point.

The point is that the World Meteorological Organization has long been one of the chief promoters of the great global warming scare. The WMO was one of the two United Nations organizations — the other was the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) – which set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC exists on the unquestioned assumption that man-made climate change is a serious problem. Its only purposes are to find more evidence for the problem’s existence and to propose various solutions for how to deal with it. At no stage, ever, can the IPCC admit to there not being a man-made climate change problem because that would mean doing itself out of business.

The WMO and its various UN sidekicks, in other words, represent the belly of the beast of the Climate Industrial Complex.

This is the rampaging monster against which President Trump has heroically pitted himself on his holy mission to slay the Green Blob.

It will not be an easy task — and it might even be a hopeless one for the Green Blob has many tentacles.

One of them is this rather noisome organisation, the Science Media Centre, which reports to be a neutral charity providing dispassionate information about science but, in fact, works as a tireless disseminator of green propaganda. In order to big up the WMO report, it has lined up various members of the usual suspects from the world of climate alarmism to testify about how amazingly important it is — and to dutifully confirm that, yes, global warming is, like, even worse than ever.

Why, here is Prof. Martin Siegert of the Grantham Institute, funded by climate alarmist hedge funder Jeremy Grantham, to promote the cause of climate alarmism:

The announcement from WMO is shocking but sadly unsurprising… We simply cannot say we haven’t been warned, however.  The problem is ours to fix and we must do so right now.  The longer we wait for effective action the harder and more costly it will be.

Well, whoulda thunk, eh?

And here is the photogenic Dr. Emily Shuckburgh of the British Antarctic Survey:

The changes we are now seeing in the polar regions are a stark reminder of the scale and urgency of the climate challenge.

Of course they are, Emily. Of course. And you didn’t even need to use the phrase, “By the way, please can we have lots more grant funding?”

And here’s Dr. Phil Williamson, speaking from the home of the Climategate scandal, the University of East Anglia:

Human-driven climate change is now an empirically-verifiable fact, combining year-to-year variability with the consequences of our release of extra greenhouse gases.  Those who dispute that link are not sceptics, but anti-science deniers.

Surely this can’t be the same Dr. Phil Williamson whose complaint was humiliatingly rejected when he reported your humble correspondent to IPSO because he objected to a few pieces I’d written explaining why Ocean Acidification was basically just another junk science scare intended to prop up the alarmist anti-CO2 narrative? Why yes. Exactly that Dr. Phil Williamson.

Truly these people have no shame. And they can go on and on spouting all this nonsense because the braindead liberal media is more than happy to regurgitate it. As you can see, for example, from this pile of weapons-grade tosh from the Independent.

None of this scaremongering has any basis in reality, though, as Paul Homewood patiently explains in this masterly demolition job.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Climate Change Deniers Should Be Executed ‘Gently’ Says Eric Idle

Climate change denial is a “crime against humanity” which should be punishable by trial in a world court says Monty Python’s Eric Idle.

But it’s OK. Even though he does apparently believe that the punishment for such “stupidity and ignorance” should be death, Idle generously insists that these deniers should be “put down” humanely.

This, I am sure we can all agree, is very big of him.

What’s sadder, though, perhaps is that from now on every time we watch the final scene of Monty Python’s Life of Brian and the bit where Eric Idle says from the cross “Cheer up Brian…”, before launching into “Always Look On the Bright Side Of Life”, we won’t be able to laugh any more.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why I Totally Hate Big Oil – And Why You Should Too…


Did you hear the speech that Al Gore gave in Texas the other day saying that the oil industry should take climate change more seriously, that oil could peak in the next decade, that the “social acceptance” for oil was disappearing, that there needed to be a meaningful tax on carbon emissions and that he “strongly supported” the Paris climate agreement?
Oh no, wait. It wasn’t Al Gore. My bad. It was actually Ben van Beurden, chief executive of Shell speaking at an oil industry gathering at the U.S. oil capital of Houston.

Now do you see why I so hate Big Oil?

Well, partly it’s bitterness. For many years now, I – and many sceptics like me – have been accused by climate alarmists of being “in the pay of Big Oil”. But even though we deserve it for promoting fossil fuels so enthusiastically and fighting their critics so heroically, few of us have ever received even a penny for our troubles. That’s because Big Oil is far too busy trying to greenwash its image – as Shell itself did by sponsoring the Guardian’s environment pages for many years – to waste time on the plucky, outspoken heroes who do a better job for Big Oil’s PR than the Big Oil’s paid PR departments do.

Mainly, though it’s disgust. Big Oil has this public image of being an industry for fearless, no-nonsense manly men who aren’t afraid of getting their hands dirty or braving the environmentalists’ wrath in order to do their ugly but important work supplying the world with much-needed energy.

Yet it’s an image almost entirely undeserved.

Almost everyone at a senior level in Big Oil is a craven, simpering, politically correct, spineless, surrender-monkey corporate shill. They’re cowards who are scared of free markets, won’t speak up for capitalism, won’t even defend their core business. Typical of this attitude was the current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

One of his first moves on becoming CEO of Exxon in 2006 was to announce it would stop funding organisations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute “whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.” Unlike his punchier predecessor Lee Raymond, Tillerson clearly decided that discretion being the better part of valor, he would throw his industry’s supporters to the wolves.

One of the first big energy stories I covered for Breitbart was the incredible true story of how Chevron Oil fought off a $9.5 billion damages case filed on behalf of Ecuadorean natives whose lands had supposedly been polluted as a result of Chevron’s negligence.

The truly incredible part of the story was that Chevron decided to defend the case. The more usual position of Big Oil is to surrender as soon as possible and settle out of court.

If Big Oil won’t speak out for the oil industry, who will?

Sadly, the burden invariably falls to that small group of maverick believers in free markets and honest science who don’t care about all the brickbats they get for being defenders of “dirty fuel” because they’d rather speak the truth than be popular.

Among them is Steve Milloy who, May 2008, intervened in an Exxon shareholder meeting on behalf of all those shareholders who think that Exxon’s core business should be drilling oil and creating value for shareholders – not getting distracted by trying to make themselves look cuter for their Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) critics. Follow this link and you can hear the huge round applause Milloy won from shareholders when he proposed that Exxon should amend its bye-laws so that it no longer had to waste time on politicised interventions from “nuisance shareholders”.

Stock ownership has become politicized. Many shareholders own stock in publicly-owned corporations for the sole purpose of advancing the shareholders’ own social or political agendas, while simultaneously assailing the corporations’ legitimate business operations. These activist shareholders are “nuisance shareholders.”

A primary tool of nuisance shareholders is the submission of non-binding precatory (advisory) proposals for discussion and vote at annual meetings of shareholders. Proposals from nuisance shareholders can coerce management into making decisions not in the best interests of the Company and its bona fide shareholders, and turn the annual meeting into a media-activist circus.

You’d think Exxon would have been grateful for this fire support from their public. Not one bit. We can see this from Exxon’s response to a submission from Milloy that he intends to make a similar proposal at Exxon’s next shareholder meeting this May. They applied to the SEC to try to get Milloy’s proposal excluded.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Scott Pruitt Says No to CO2 and Social Justice at EPA

Pruitt
AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki

Two pieces of excellent news from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) show that incoming administrator Scott Pruitt is doing the Lord’s work.

First, he has come clean and said what he should have ‘fessed up to a while back: he doesn’t believe in the Carbon Fairy.

Asked his views on the role of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels, in increasing global warming, Mr. Pruitt said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.”

That phrase, “the heat-trapping gas produced by burning fossil fuels,” is just a bit of New York Times editorializing, by the way. No serious person thinks that man-made carbon dioxide poses any kind of major climate threat because there’s just no evidence to support that theory. It’s just one of those cherished left-liberal myths that goes next to other fantasy concepts like “equality,” “sustainability,” and “social justice.”

Speaking of which, the second piece of good news is that the Environmental Protection Agency has just lost its head of Environmental Justice.

Probably you didn’t know that the EPA had a head of Environmental Justice, but you should because you’ve been paying his salary since the George H.W. Bush era. His name is Mustafa Ali, and, according to a tearful requiem in Inside Climate, he has resigned in protest at EPA budget cuts, which will see the agency lose 20 percent of its 15,000 staff and $2 billion from its $8 billion.

“Jumped before he was pushed” is the phrase that comes to mind, for it is likely that Ali’s department will be dismantled altogether.

Ali has written a resignation letter to Scott Pruitt saying what a mistake this would be.

But if you go to the EPA’s website and see what the Environmental Justice Department has been doing for the last few years, you may disagree with this assessment.

Check out this page About EJ 2020.

By the end, you’ll have no more idea what the Environmental Justice Department does than you did at the beginning.

Here’s a taste:

Through EJ 2020, EPA will advance our environmental justice efforts to a new level in improving the health and environment of overburdened communities. By 2020, we will:

  • Improve on-the-ground results for overburdened communities through reduced impacts and enhanced benefits
  • Institutionalize environmental justice integration in EPA decision-making
  • Build robust partnerships with states, tribes and local governments
  • Strengthen our ability to take action on environmental justice and cumulative impacts
  • Better address complex national environmental justice issues.

Our vision of how EPA will make a difference in the environmental and public health landscape over the next five years is detailed on the key results page of the plan.

It is, as I think you’ll agree, pure gibberish. How do you measure this department’s success in advancing the cause of “environmental justice”? Well, of course, you don’t. You can’t because “environmental justice” is a nebulous concept, which can mean pretty much anything you want it to mean.

Reading between the lines, though, what you can guess is that it’s basically another race-guilt make-work scheme. It’s based on the (spurious, identity-politics-driven) notion that environmental problems are felt more keenly by people of color because they live in poorer areas more vulnerable to pollution.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

President Trump Must Not Wobble on Climate Change – Whatever Ivanka Says…

If she wants a pony and bats her eyelashes at me, I’ll be off in a trice to buy her a herd. Baby unicorn ponies, if that’s what she prefers. With jewels inlaid in their spiral horns and maybe some magical attachment that plays the collected works of Taylor Swift while she rides.

So I totally get where President Trump is coming from when I read reports that, under the influence of Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner, he has toned the phrasing of an Executive Order so that it no longer includes derogatory comments about the utterly useless and pointless climate deal signed in Paris in 2015 by Barack Obama.

Kushner and Ivanka “intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order,” sources familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal.

Ivanka and her husband “have been considered a moderating influence on the White House’s position on climate change and environmental issues,” WSJ reports. Now, the executive order will have no mention of the so-called Paris agreement.

If it’s just a case of casual daughter-pleasing, fine. But if he actually means it than we should all start to worry.

I’ve said it before but it’s worth saying again: if President Trump proves to be as radical on energy and climate as he promised to be on the campaign trail, then this, even if he achieves nothing else, will more than qualify him for a place next to the greats on Mt Rushmore.

He will go down in history as the hero who slew ManBearPig: the president who, unlike his pusillanimous, career-safe, Establishment predecessors from Clinton and the Bushes to the ultimate horror that was Obama, finally had the courage, integrity and honesty to point out that the Climate Emperor is wearing no clothes; the guy who brought to the end the greatest scientific scandal ever; who saved Western Industrial Civilisation from the Watermelons.

But it’s all very well having good instincts and good intentions. The hard part will be dealing with all the obstacles thrown in his way by the monstrously large group of special interests sometimes known as the Green Blob and sometimes as the Climate Industrial Complex.

Read the rest at Breitbart.