Three Great Signs that Trump Is Winning the Climate Wars

Trump digs coal
DOMINICK REUTER/AFP/Getty

Donald Trump is #winning the climate wars.

Here are three signs that despite stiff opposition not just from greens and Democrats, but from elements (such as Javanka) from within his own administration – Trump is on course for crushing victory over the Green Blob.

Scott Pruitt is cleaning out the Augean Stables (aka the Environmental Protection Agency)

Essentially the EPA is and always has been a communist sleeper cell introduced to the heart of the U.S. government system by Richard Nixon in the mistaken belief that paying Danegeld to your enemies will make them leave you alone. Since 1970, it has swollen to embrace more than 17,000 employees, many of them deep-green ideologues on a holy mission to rein in economic growth, restrict consumer freedoms and reduce living standards by introducing ever more swingeing environmental restrictions on both businesses and private individuals. The EPA is the viper in America’s bosom.

But now the viper is being defanged.

Here is one example, which the Washington Post reported under the headline Pruitt’s new science advisers add more industry experts, conservatives to the mix.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Muslim Leaders Finally Bite the Bullet on the Key Issue of Our Time…

muslim prayer
AP/Matt Rourke

Finally, just when we were beginning to fear it couldn’t get any worse, Muslim leaders have taken a stand and said: “Enough is enough!”

Yes, the Islamic Society of North America – the largest Muslim organization in the U.S. – has affirmed its commitment to combating climate change. It is going to divest itself of all its investment holdings in fossil fuels.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Why Renewables Are Doomed and Fossil Fuels Are the Future

We’re on the verge of a new energy revolution. Except it’s the exact opposite of the one the “experts” at places like BP,  the International Energy Agency and – ahem – the Guardian are predicting.

For years we’ve been assured by politicians, energy industry specialists and green advocates that renewables such as wind and solar are getting more and more cost-competitive while dirty fossil fuels are so discredited and wrong and evil we’ll soon have to leave them in the ground.

But to believe this you’d have to believe in a world where Donald Trump and Brexit hadn’t happened; where taxpayers were still prepared to bankroll, ad infinitum, the expensive, inefficient, environmentally-damaging produce of favoured crony-capitalists; where no one had access on the internet to articles showing how the whole climate change industry is such a scam.

That world doesn’t exist.

This is why we need to take with a massive pinch of salt, for example, the latest BP Energy Outlook 2017 which claims that renewables are set to grow and grow over the next two decades:

Renewables in power are set to be the fastest growing source of energy – at 7.6% per year to 2035, more than quadrupling over the Outlook period. Renewables account for 40% of the growth in power generation, causing their share of global power to increase from 7% in 2015 to nearly 20% by 2035.

It’s why we should laugh to scorn articles like this one in Vox boasting about how the US solar industry employs more people than the US coal industry.

And why economics writers like the normally sensible Jeremy Warner do themselves no favours when they produce tosh like this in the op-ed columns of that once respectable newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

Read the rest at Breitbart.

Guardian Editor-in-Chief Hits Peak Stupid

I’d been meaning to write today about why Oxford University should divest itself of one of its zoology graduates. But I’m afraid that will have to wait because I’ve just read today’s Guardian cover story and have realised that the stupid runs much deeper than George Monbiot and goes right to the top.

The piece is sub-headed “Why it’s time to start divesting from the companies that already have far more fossil fuels than they can ever be allowed to use” and it’s written by the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger.

Now in the past I have been fairly agnostic about Rusbridger. His Harry Potterish appearance, his Quixotic secret ambition to be a concert pianist, his £400,000 salary package and his public school education (Cranleigh) all led me to believe that, for all the ghastliness of his newspaper’s politics, he was deep down a loveably ramshackle closet capitalist and probably not nearly as brainlessly left-wing as the Guardian.

What changed my view first was the Guardian’s disgusting complicity in the Edward Snowden intelligence leaks. Amazingly Rusbridger’s newspaper shared a Pulitzer prize for this, despite growing evidence that these leaks have done untold damage to the security of both Britain and the US and have certainly aided and abetted Islamist terror groups like ISIS.

Now Rusbridger has jumped onto yet another suicidal bandwagon, this time cheerleading a campaign for all the world’s big institutions, fund managers and so on to “divest” their share portfolios of their fossil fuel holdings. (Among the logos of companies featured on the Guardian’s cover as examples of “the most polluting coal, gas and oil companies in the world” is that of Shell, which for a long time sponsored the Guardian’s Environment pages. I hope Shell appreciates this display of gratitude).

In vain, though, do you find in Rusbridger’s lengthy apologia for this campaign any evidence as to why it is justified.

It is, rather, little more than a collection of slogans and dubious assertions. This first paragraph gives you a taste.

The world has much more coal, oil and gas in the ground than it can safely burn. That much is physics. Anyone studying the question with an open mind will almost certainly come to a similar conclusion: if we and our children are to have a reasonable chance of living stable and secure lives 30 or so years from now, according to one recent study 80 per cent of the known coal reserves will have to stay underground, along with half the gas and a third of the oil reserves.

This is scientific, political, economic and social illiteracy. It presupposes, first, that the case for man-made global warming theory is proven (which – duh – it so totally isn’t); and second, that all the nations of the world will have the collective will refuse to take advantage of the natural resources beneath their seas and their soil on the say so of kooks like the Prince of Wales, Al Gore and Alan Rusbridger. I particularly love that phrase “anyone studying the question with an open mind….”, which clearly doesn’t apply to Rusbridger himself. If it did, he would surely at least have acquainted himself with the fact the 87 per cent of the world’s energy demand is currently satisfied by fossil fuels and that renewable energy has proved itself quite unable to replace them on any economically viable level.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil
  2. Peak energy? What peak energy?
  3. Murdoch, Hackgate, Climategate, the Guardian and the vile hypocrisy of the Left
  4. Climategate: peak oil, the CRU and the Oman connection

Leo DiCaprio Wages War on Western Civilisation

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio has declared war on Western industrial civilisation

by funding and narrating a series of short eco-documentaries urging us all to leave fossil fuels in the ground, cripple our economies with carbon taxes and embrace bird-frying, bat-chomping renewable technologies such as solar and wind.

The first film in the series on Carbon – co-written by liberal activist cum talk radio host Thom Hartmann – is riddled with basic errors, extremely dubious propaganda claims, and flagrant politicking on behalf of the more left-wing elements in the Obama administration. But DiCaprio may well have been unable to afford a fact-checker, owing to the fact that he was paid just $10 million for his last movie The Wolf of Wall Street – a catastrophic drop in the income he received for earlier movies, like Inception, for which he received nearly $60 million.

Here are some of the simple mistakes DiCaprio would have spotted, if only he had been able to scrape together the money for an entry-level production team.

“Ancient life on earth. Over millions of years plants and animals lived and died; that decomposed life sunk deep into the ground and as a result an ancient menace was created: fossil fuels.”

Er, about that phrase “ancient menace”, Leo. You’re talking about the intense stored energy that made the Industrial Revolution possible; that freed people from the backbreaking toil of agrarianism and enabled the division of labour and technological advances that led, inter alia, to the invention of cinema and the birth of your career. Without fossil fuels your sorry ass would be nothing, DiCaprio – and all your cutesy pop fans would still be slaving as dairy maids and gleaners, their faces ravaged by cowpox. So a little more respect and perspective, please.

“97 per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and caused by human activity.”

No they don’t. Which dork fed you that line? Joe Romm? Thom Hartmann? Whoever it was, get your lawyers on the case and sue the arse off him for having made you look such an ignorant pillock. Here is why the 97 per cent  figure is not to be taken seriously.

“They drill, they extract making trillions of dollars.”

You talk about making large sums of money like it’s a bad thing, Leo. Can we assume from this that in future, you’ll be doing all your movies for the minimum wage to show your solidarity with the world’s poor, exploited and oppressed? Oh, and by the way, that graphic your people slipped in at this point showing “chemical waste” leaking into the water table as a result of fracking: this is just an urban myth promulgated by people like the Russians and the Middle Eastern oil despots to deny the US energy security.

Read the rest at Breitbart London

Related posts:

  1. Twitter wars: another proxy battleground for the future of Western civilisation
  2. How the BBC fell for a Marxist plot to destroy civilisation from within
  3. Peak energy? What peak energy?
  4. Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

 

Wind Industry Big Lies no. 1: Fossil Fuels Are More ‘Subsidised’ Than Renewables

Barry “Dork Brain” Gardiner

Is Labour MP Barry Gardiner vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? Personally since he appears to be a litigious sort of fellow I’m plumping for the latter. That’s why, I think it’s quite possible that when he was at his public school Haileybury his nickname was “Dork Brain.” (Though I have no more evidence for this than Gardiner does for most of his hysterical views on climate change)

But I leave you to draw your own conclusions after his recent claim, in an interview with Energy Live news, that the Coalition is favouring fossil fuel energy over wind energy through generous subsidies. (H/T Bishop Hill)

Here’s what Gardiner said:

He claimed the third [lie behind government energy policy] is that Government is “neutral” and doesn’t pick favourites in energy: “Last year the OECD announced that in 2010 the UK subsidised fossil fuels by £3.6 billion. In last year’s budget, the Chancellor announced a further £65million to oil and gas in 2011… In contrast the total subsidy paid to onshore wind in 2010 was just £400million.”

As Bishop Hill notes, he made the same claim in August in the New Statesman:

Last year, the OECD estimated that in 2010 the subsidies for coal, gas and petrol in the UK amounted to £3.6bn on top of which the Chancellor, in the 2012 budget, has announced further exploration and production subsidies of £65m to develop the West of Shetland fields.

So it must be true, right? Not only is Gardiner an elected member of parliament but he’s Ed Miliband’s Special Envoy For Climate Change and the Environment, and also Vice President of (the environmental movement’s sinister taxpayer-funded answer to SPECTRE) Globe International. A man with such important and influential public positions wouldn’t be in the business of telling whopping great porkies, now, would he?

Well, whether Gardiner is lying or thick as pig poo he is most certainly mistaken. Let’s examine his claim more closely in order to spare him and those like him the embarrassment of disseminating false information again.

The claim seems to have begun life in this OECD report, characteristically misrepresented by the Guardian’s Ubergruppenklimatischewahnsinnigefuhrer Damian Carrington in a piece titled Wind power still gets lower public subsidies than fossil fuel tax breaks. It claimed:

Gas, oil and coal prices were subsidised by £3.63bn in 2010, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development , whereas offshore and onshore wind received £0.7bn in the year from April 2010.

This was at best a tendentious stretching of the truth unworthy of a serious newspaper. (If you believe the Guardian deserves such a title). At worst, it’s pure political activism. In fact, as Bishop Hill notes, the “subsidies” claimed by Carrington and Gardiner weren’t subsidies at all.

The OECD paper does not mention subsidies of £3.6bn. That figure refers to the value of the reduced rate of VAT on energy. This does not meet the definition of a subsidy, which involves a cash payment. And since it applies to all kinds of energy it cannot be a “fossil fuel” subsidy either, so Gardiner’s claim about picking favourites is patently false.

His claim about the further £65m for oil and gas is not a subsidy either, being a reduction in a supertax (the Supplementary Charge) which is paid by oil companies but not by renewables firms. This therefore is not a subsidy and demonstrates that government policy favours renewables over fossil fuels the opposite of what Gardiner has said.

This was also pointed out in June by Telegraph blogs’ own Tim Worstall. In reality, he noted, if you go by Carrington’s definition of a subsidy, it’s the wind industry which is subsidised, not the fossil fuel industry, to the tune of £41 billion.

And, if you want chapter and verse on this issue, go to the excellent Communities Against Turbines Scotland site (where the Resistance is articulate and strong) and look up Stuart Young’s report. Government subsidy for Renewables in 2012, it notes, is £1,780 million pounds. Subsidies paid to the gas, oil and coal industry in the same period: 0 pounds.

To recap then: the UK fossil fuel industry is not “subsidised” in any meaningful sense of the word “subsidy.” Charging less tax on something is not “subsidising” something.

The government does not give fossil fuel companies sweeteners to encourage them to produce more fossil fuel power. That’s because they don’t need any incentives: the fossil fuel power industry is perfectly viable without subsidy.

The government does, however, give massive sweeteners to the renewable industry wind especially. Onshore turbines are given a 100 per cent subsidy from the government (aka the taxpayer). Offshore turbines are given a 200 per cent subsidy. Without these sweeteners not a single wind turbine would be built because the power they produce being intermittent and unreliable is to all intents and purposes worthless in a free market.

Therefore what Carrington claims in that Guardian article is untrue. What Gardiner told Energy Live and the New Statesman is untrue. They really ought to know better and now they do. So if they repeat these claims again it won’t merely be down to an error of extreme stupidity, will it? It will be an abject and cynical lie.

Now we’ve settled that one I wish Gardiner the best of luck in his threatened libel action with the daily-more-magnificent-and-admirable Ben Pile (of Climate Resistance) over some Tweets summarised here by the Bishop:

@BarryGardiner is a liar about the OECD analysis, even if he is right about energy proces rising. […] Shame on you, Barry.

A tweet that ended up with quite an interesting exchange of views:

GARDINER: Your tweet is actionable. Please withdraw it. I correctly state OECD figures for Fossil Fuel Subsidies were £3.6bn in 2010

PILE: you can’t call people liars and complain about being called a liar. Oecd figures are for reduced rate of vat, not subsidiesand you know that oecd figures are reduced rate, not subsidies, hence you are dishonest.

GARDINER: Also I said gov policy was based on a lie. No named person = not actionable You named me = actionable Please retract

PILE: it’s true. You knew that what you said wasn’t true. So you lied. I said so. That ain’t ‘actionable’. If you think it isi’ll withdraw my tweet if you explain that you were wrong about subsidies to energy live newsWhen did it become ‘actionable’ to call an MP a liar, anyway?

GARDINER: So reducing tax to favour the consumption of a particular product does not count as a subsidy in your book? Really?

PILE: no, reducing tax is taking less money, subsidy is giving money. I’m surprised an MP can’t tell the difference. Hmm.and reduced rate doesn’t favour any particular form of energy. Applies to renewables too. Surprised you don’t know this.

Send me your email address, and i’ll give you my postal address so you can get your lawyer to proceed

GARDINER: Gardinerb@parliament.uk

PILE: let me up the stakes by adding ‘coward’ to liar.

PILE: thanks. I’ve got no money or property, I hope you realise. Could cost you.

Yep. Popcorn time.

Related posts:

  1. ‘Wind farms cure cancer, save kittens, create world peace’ says new wind industry report
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. We need to talk about wind farms…
  4. The best article on wind farms you will ever read

One thought on “Wind Industry Big Lies no 1: fossil fuels are more ‘subsidised’ than renewables”

  1. Tallbloke says:20th December 2012 at 10:27 pmIs Delingpole vilely dishonest or just incredibly stupid? In actual fact the the subsidies for fossil fuels dwarf those for renewables.http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/fossilfuel4.pdf

Comments are closed.