Anti-fossil fuel SCC (Social Cost of Carbon) relies on garbage models, ignores carbon benefits and hurts the poor.
By Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek
“If you could pick just one thing to reduce poverty, by far you would pick energy,” Bill Gates has said. “Access to energy is absolutely fundamental in the struggle against poverty,” World Bank VP Rachel Kyte and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen agree.
The UN Development Program also calls energy “central to poverty reduction.” And International Energy Agency Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol notes that “coal is raising living standards and lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.” In fact, all fossil fuels are doing so.
Indeed, fossil fuels created the modern world and the housing, transportation, other technologies and living standards so many of us take for granted. They are essential for electricity and life, and over the past 250 years they more than doubled average life expectancy in countries that took advantage of them.
But the Obama Administration and radical environmentalists despise fossil fuels and used every tactic they could devise to eliminate them. One of their most important schemes was the “social cost of carbon.”
Many on the alarmist side of the climate debate seem to struggle to find rational arguments or evidence to support their cause so they usually resort to character assassination or defamation. A common attack on me is “Viv Forbes is just a coal industry stooge.”
This was put to the test recently at the year’s biggest Mining Industry function – the Queensland Resources Council Annual Forum and Lunch. The delegates on stage at the forum included very senior managers from BHP Billiton, Shell, Anglo-American, Peabody and Glencore. The audience was invited to ask questions.
I asked why people who employed many competent geologists, physicists and chemists never questioned the science behind the global warming scare.
NOT ONE INDUSTRY FIGURE ANSWERED, and the compère quickly moved on.
This is how the Courier Mail reported it:
“YOU might say mining industry figure Viv Forbes was the proverbial fly in the ointment at the Queensland Resources Council “state of the sector” forum in Brisbane on Wednesday.
The climate change denier got a cold response from a panel of industry high flyers when he asked why none of them questioned the science behind global warming “hysteria”.
Indeed, there was an awkward silence before the group, including top guns from Glencore and Shell, quickly moved on.
Forbes, who serves on the board of Brisbane-based Stanmore Coal, chairs a group known as the “Carbon Sense Coalition” and backs “Clexit,” an exit from climate treaties.
Just this week he reiterated his call “to defund all CSIRO global warming activities” and slammed “research puppets on the UN man-made global warming agenda”.”
Just for the record, I am no longer a director of Stanmore Coal, and receive zero income from the coal industry. I still hold shares in Stanmore coal, a coking coal producer and exporter.
[Click the image for a larger view, and to read more.]
You ratified the Paris Climate Agreement on Thursday 10 November 2016 without discussion with the Australian people and without revealing the implications or the cost.
You did this despite protests from Liberal and LNP Branches in NSW and Queensland.
The Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme.
Mr Abbott handsomely won the 2013 election by committing to revoke Labor’s Carbon Tax.
We didn’t know then that Mr Abbott had apparently made an unpublicised deal with Greg Hunt to support a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme.
You broke faith with the Australian people by usurping Mr Abbot as leader in September.
Then, on the last sitting day of Parliament in December 2015, you enacted Greg Hunt’s bill, supported by Labor and the Greens, for “The Emissions Reduction Fund Safeguard”.
This bill was in effect a Cap and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme, not dissimilar to Ms Gillard’s Clean Energy Act 2011 which the people had previously rejected.
We only learned of it when we read Alan Kohler’s article in The Australian on May 23, 2016.
Australia has an ambitious and scientifically unjustifiable target to reduce CO2 emissions by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Subsidies for Renewable Energy are currently running at over $2.8bn a year.
Estimates of the total cost to Australia of renewable energy are up to $60bn.
There is a worldwide commercial failure of renewable energy projects,
There are no foreseeable prospects of affordable bulk energy storage technology,
There is a TOTAL lack of any scientific evidence justifying the closure of thermal power stations because of their CO2 emissions in favour of renewable energy plants,
It is essential that we have the lowest cost electrical energy technically available, and
Mr Trump and the Republicans have said they will wind back President Obama’s Climate Change policies. When they do, you and your policies will be left politically high and dry.
You have not been practicing Open Government Prime Minister, so now please tell us:
1. Why are you ratifying unexplained secretive Climate Change Agreements with the UN?
2. Why did you introduce a Cap and Trade ETS contrary to public expectations?
3. Why are you supporting costly and unreliable renewable energy?
4. What is the cost to Australia of these Climate Change Agreements?
This week’s Newspoll and Mr Trump’s Presidential victory are clear warnings that if you don’t start acting like the leader of a true Right-of-Centre Political Party, we will all have three years of a Labor Government and you will be yet another failed Australian Prime Minister.
Grasslands and arable land cover just 10% of Earth’s surface but (with the oceans) they produce all of our food and fibre. But the productivity and health of our grasslands, farms and livestock are under threat from global warming alarmists and green preservationists.
We are afflicted by climate crazies and methane madness. It is poor public policy that condones restrictions on grazing operations, or taxes on grazing animals, based on disputed theories that claim that bodily emissions from farm animals will cause dangerous global warming.
New Zealand was the first cattle country to propose a “livestock fart tax”. Four hundred farmers then drove 20 tractors to the Parliament in Wellington waving placards and banners saying “STOP THE FART TAX”. The proposal was laughed out of Parliament. But the war on farmers and livestock continues.
Permission is given to reproduce this cartoon providing the source (www.clexit.net) is credited. (more…)
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, William M. Briggs, David R. Legates, Anthony Lupo, Istvan Marko, Dennis Mitchell, & Willie Soon
25 Sep 2016
Some 375 political activists attached to the National Academy of Sciences, supporting the totalitarian view on the climate question, have recently issued an open letter saying we “caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.”
In fact, the extent of our influence on climate is not “settled science.” Only 0.3% of twelve thousand papers published in learned journals claimed that recent warming was mostly manmade. The 375 activists are entitled to their opinion, but the scientific community’s peer-reviewed results overwhelmingly fail to endorse their narrow view that recent warming was predominately manmade.
True, we influence climate, by returning to the air some of the carbon dioxide that was there before. But so do termites, by emitting more methane than all the world’s farm animals combined. So do plants, by taking carbon dioxide; storing the carbon in leaves, stems, and trunks; and returning the oxygen to the air. So does the Sun, by supplying nearly all the Earth’s radiant energy. So do volcanoes, by emitting hot rocks that warm the air and ejecta that shade the Earth from the Sun and cause cooling. So do the oceans, by helping to keep the Earth’s temperature within a few degrees either side of the period mean for more than 800,000 years.
At the recent G20 summit in China, the world leader of the Global Warming Religion, Ban Ki-moon, canonised two new ministers – Father Obama (who seeks political sainthood in his after-life), and Father Xi Jinping (who seeks to crucify western industry on the climate cross). Both signed the Paris Pledge.
This is an age in which some aspects of science have completely reversed. Despite the planet remaining exactly the same, plus the sun, moon, stars, and people, nevertheless what we learned in school appears now to be irrelevant and replaced by concepts empirical physicists like Newton would have had difficulty comprehending. In this new age, new science is driven by funding rather than facts, and ideology rather than ideas. They are interesting times, because the future of science itself may be at stake. If the new trend of politically-directed science is to completely replace the scientific method, which called for rigorous standards of evidence and proof, then it will be entirely up to the politicians of the future to decide what is true or false. What follows is a brief description of some aspects of this new science. (more…)
Mirrors and Mazes: A guide to the climate debate. Dr Howard Thomas Brady.
Emeritus Professor Cliff Ollier, has reviewed this book in the New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal (V4,no1,2016). Ollier explains that the title Mirrors and Mazes reflects the author’s idea of how the IPCC and others have acted like magicians tricking their audience and Ollier comments: I have read many books on climate but have found much new material here.
The late Professor Bob Carter commented: this book is just plain interesting and reads extremely well.
Emeritus Professor Peter Flood in his review comments: “This is indeed one of those rare book on climate: it is a concise and clear reader, while also profoundly rich in its concepts, analysis and scope, addressing the critical issues in the climate debate. There are no distracting emotional attacks on individuals. There is humour. There are interesting stories.
As background, the author was one of the site geologists for the first drill holes into rock on the Antarctic mainland (Dry Valley Drilling Project) and the first drill holes through the Ross Ice Shelf (Ross Ice Shelf Project). In 2011 Dr. Brady was presented the Alumnus Scientist of the Year Award by the Dean of Northern Illinois University for his contributions to Antarctic science. The author now lives in Canberra, Australia.
Publisher: Mirrors and Mazes, Canberra, Australia. 2016, 175p. In Australia the book can be purchased for $20.00 from the website http://www.mirrorsandmazes.com.au. You can actually give this book to your non-scientists friends for an enjoyable quiet afternoon read. It was written for them. Full details and reviews of the book can be read on the website. Overseas the book is printed and distributed by Amazon in North America, UK and Europe in the currencies of those countries.
By Keith DeLacy AM, Queensland business identity and former Labor Treasurer of Queensland.
First published by The Australian [$ Paywall]
One policy which seems to have escaped scrutiny during this election campaign is Labor’s commitment to increase the Renewable Energy Target (RET) to 50% by 2030.
I am surprised because it is a proposal that has enormous ramifications for economic growth and living standards, and disproportionate impacts on traditional Labor constituencies.
The problem we have in Australia is when we talk renewable energy we are talking wind and solar only – low value, expensive, unreliable, high capital cost, land hungry, intermittent energy.
According to the Department of Industry and Science wind currently generates 4.1% and solar 2% of Australia’s electricity. But even this is highly misleading because it is such low value power. You could close it down tomorrow (which it regularly does by itself) and it would make no difference to supply.
If we talk about total energy, as opposed to just electricity, wind and solar represent 1% of Australia’s energy consumption. This despite billions of dollars of investment, subsidies, creative tariffs, mandates, and so on.
Solar and wind simply don’t work, not here, not anywhere. The energy supply is not dense enough. The capital cost of consolidating it makes it cost prohibitive. (more…)