Germany, epicentre of global environmentalism, is losing faith in the green dream. Its energy minister has admitted that it will fall some way short of its 2020 climate targets and that voters are weary of the renewable energy projects which in Germany alone cost taxpayers around €25 billion per year.
Voters across Europe have lost faith in politics partly because of “unachievable targets” on renewable energy, said German Energy Minister Peter Altmaier, who rejected calls from a group of other EU countries to boost the share of renewables to 33-35% of the bloc’s energy mix by 2030. […]
“Germany supports responsible but achievable targets,” Altmaier said from the outset, underlining Berlin’s efforts to raise the share of renewables to 15% of the country’s overall energy mix.
But he said those efforts also carried a cost for the German taxpayer, which he put at €25 billion per year. “And if we are setting targets that are definitely above 30%, that means that within a decade, our share has to be more than doubled – clearly more than doubled,” Altmaier pointed out.
Rather than cutting emissions of the greenhouse gas by 40 percent compared with 1990 levels, Europe’s largest economy will manage reductions of just 32 percent, said the annual climate report for 2017 signed off by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet.
The shortfall of eight percentage points translates into around 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) pumped into the air annually.
These are shocking admissions from the country which has probably done more than any other to advocate for “clean energy”. Germany had set itself the ambitious target of becoming completely independent of fossil fuels in a scheme known as Energiewende.
NASA’s new administrator Jim Bridenstine has done his president a grave disservice.
Perhaps he thinks he has just been politic – canny even – by publicly reversing his stated position on man-made climate change and declaring himself a true believer.
“I heard a lot of experts, and I read a lot,” was the excuse he recently gave to the Washington Post.
“I came to the conclusion myself that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that we’ve put a lot of it into the atmosphere and therefore we have contributed to the global warming that we’ve seen. And we’ve done it in really significant ways.”
But this was an unforced error which has needlessly hampered the Trump administration’s war on the Climate Industrial Complex.
It’s the kind of cynical positioning you might have expected from a RINO swamp appointee in either of the Bush administrations. But it’s entirely inappropriate in the Trump era: there’s a war to be fought here and there’s really no space for fainthearts – not even when those fainthearts are Republican ex-congressmen with a distinguished past as US Navy fliers.
Hard-left activist Occupy Wall Street has published the private Tulsa, Oklahoma, home address of Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt – encouraging its followers to take a “pitchfork to him directly.”
In doing so, they have unwittingly demonstrated the wisdom of something for which up till now Pruitt has been heavily criticized by the liberal media and left wing pressure groups: taking on extra security.
According to Daily Caller:
Occupy Wall Street posted Pruitt’s address on Twitter on Monday along with a New York Times article detailing the EPA head’s “cozy ties” with Joseph Craft, a coal executive. The group gave out his address to their Twitter followers “if you want to take [your] pitchfork to him directly.”
But as former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer was among several to note – “In case you’re wondering why this guy needs security…”, he tweeted – this is precisely why Pruitt needs security protection.
Since proving himself the most able and effective of President Trump’s administrators, Scott Pruitt has been the victim of a prolonged hate campaign conducted by an unholy alliance of Democrats, Never Trumpers and green/hard left activist groups.
Even pop icon Cher has got in on the act by demanding that Pruitt be put in prison.
The Met Office wants you to believe that this May just gone was the hottest ever recorded in Britain.
Here is one of its spokesmen, talking to the Daily Mail:
Tim Legg, of the Met Office National Climate Information Centre, said: ‘Increased sunshine during the month has helped to keep daytime temperatures high, leading to it provisionally being the warmest May since records began in 1910. It is also likely to be the sunniest May since 1929 too.’
Since records began in 1910, eh?
This is a true sentence: so long as you completely ignore the fact that in Britain records actually go back to 1659.
Pop icon Cher has joined the chorus of liberals demanding that Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt be imprisoned for his alleged crimes against nature.
The “Believe” singer took to Twitter on Sunday and said, “Scott Pruitt deserves to be in prison.”
Cher followed that missive with another, saying, “I Hope Any poison He’s Allowed To come in contact with innocentChildren,comes back to him 10,000 TIMES.”
Kat Taylor—wife of billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer—has resigned from Harvard’s Board of Overseers in protest at the university’s ongoing refusal to divest itself of its fossil fuel investment holdings.
The Daily Callerreports:
Taylor had enough of Harvard University’s fossil fuel investments. She stepped down from her position as a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers on Tuesday. In her resignation letter, Taylor decried the school’s “failure” to “adopt ethical commitments,” according to the Harvard Crimson.
“We should and would be horrified to find out that Harvard investments are actually funding some of the pernicious activities against which our standout academic leadership rails,” her letter stated. “But that is where we still sit, vulnerable to the inevitable association with our investment targets that profiting from them demands.
Harvard has a total endowment of $37.1 billion, with some investments in fossil fuels. The prestigious university has long faced pressure to divest. Over 100 Harvard faculty penned an open letter in 2014 urging University President Drew Faust to do so. In 2015, 20 students stormed a university building and demanded divestment. In March 2017, members of the activist organization Divest Harvard made similar demands while blockading University Hall.
It’s possible, however, that Harvard’s Board of Overseers won’t feel the loss of Ms Taylor too keenly. Her resignation, highly principled and selfless though it surely was, reportedly came just one day before her six-year term was due to expire.
The great thing about puffin stories is that they give you the perfect excuse to run a jolly picture of a puffin at the top. Everyone loves puffins, some – if you’re Icelandic – because they’re a tasty delicacy, others because, with their distinctive stripy beaks they look so attractive and charming and cute.
I expect this is why the Telegraph sent its science reporter up to the Farne Islands in Northumbria to write up a story it dramatically headlined ‘UK puffins may go the way of the dodo with fears of extinction in 50 years.’
So far the news has been bleak. The puffins arrived four weeks later than usual and initial estimates suggest the number of breeding pairs has fallen by 12 per cent.
A combination of climate change, overfishing, plastic pollution and extreme weather has left the little seabirds struggling for survival.
This was followed up by BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and also by the Daily Mail.
But the story is #fakenews.
First, as one reader pointed out, puffin colony numbers go up and down all the time.
Progressives are worried about Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War. They think its villain Thanos, whose solution to the overpopulation problem is to wipe out half the planet, gives the wrong impression that environmentalists are evil.
By ascribing selfless motives to Thanos, AIW tacitly delivers this toxic message: environmentalism = mass murder.
Solitaire Townsend, co-founder of the environmental PR agency Futerra, also finds the movie’s message too close for comfort. At Forbes, she writes:
The Mad Titan sounds worryingly like some environmentalists. Over the years the need for ‘population control and reduction’ has been widely called for as the necessary solution to our resource and sustainability crisis. Thanos is the ultimate Malthusian. After he fulfills his purpose, crumbling half of life in the universe into dust, he retires to an idyll many environmentalists would enjoy – a simple rural hut set in sunlit dappled fields. He had promised “not suffering, but salvation,” and in the final shot a tiny smile is playing on his face after a job well done. Ouch.
For Svoboda, this is a horrible distortion of the essential goodness with which environmentalists are imbued.
“Is the political class’s obsession with global warming rotting their brains?” asks Christopher Booker in a must-read piece for the Daily Mail.
To which the answer, obviously, is “Duh.”
Booker focuses on the disastrous policies, introduced by successive UK governments, encouraging people to burn more wood.
Apparently – or so the fashionable theory briefly ran – this pre-industrial technology was much more eco-friendly than coal- or gas-fired power and would thus help save the planet from the global warming.
Except of course, it hasn’t:
Wood is ‘sustainable’, we were told. It gives off less CO2 than any other heating. It will help us save the planet and meet CO2 reduction targets under the Climate Change Act.
As a result of these persuasive arguments, about 1.5 million British homes have wood-burning stoves and 200,000 more are sold every year.
Now we learn that wood-burning is the single biggest source of tiny soot particles called PM2.5s — they are also emitted by burning coal and diesel — which go into our lungs and are said to be responsible for an estimated 37,800 premature deaths a year.
Given these horrific facts, why have governments in recent years made wood-burning such a core part of energy policy? For there is no doubt ministers have been desperate to encourage it.
Actually, those pollution death estimates should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. The far bigger problem, as Booker goes on to note, is just how outrageously uneconomical it all is.