By Paul Homewood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-56690950
This is just a rehash of an old story, which I covered here three years ago. It is based on the fact that warmer sand temperatures lead to faster incubation and a greater proportion of females.
By Paul Homewood
There are major concerns about supplies of cobalt and lithium in our new electric car world. But another problem could arise with copper:
Projections by the Committee on Climate Change consistently assume that EVs come down in price below conventional vehicles, as economies of scale bite.
However there has been no sign of this so far, hence the need for obscene taxpayer subsidies. Given potential shortages of minerals, price cuts look further away than ever.
The Climate Blame Game
By Paul Homewood
I have long challenged attribution studies which blame extreme weather on climate change. I have however been unable to question the statistics behind it, as it is not my expertise.
Fortunately the eminent statistician, William Briggs, has identified the flaws behind this so-called science:
Dr Briggs points out that most attribution claims are based around comparing simulations of the climate today to simulations of the climate as it might have been without human activity. But as he explains, this approach has a fundamental problem:
“We simply have little or no idea what the climate would have been without human activity. Moreover, we can’t ever know what it was like.”
And Dr Briggs also points out that even if we did know, it would still not be enough.
“In order to attribute individual weather events to humankind, scientists need a perfect model of the climate. They do not have this. Therefore, claims that we are responsible for any particular weather event are at best overconfident, if not plain wrong.”
Attribution studies assume that the weather has been getting worse, yet empirical observations do not support this generic assumption.
Dr Briggs’s paper is entitled The Climate Blame Game: Are we really causing extreme weather (pdf)
This is the paper’s conclusion:
Harrabin Promotes Left Wing Climate Clap Trap
By Paul Homewood
h/t Jonathan Scott
Harrabin’s persistent and blatant, one sided propaganda is becoming a scandal:
The world’s wealthy must radically change their lifestyles to tackle climate change, a report says.
It says the world’s wealthiest 1% produce double the combined carbon emissions of the poorest 50%, according to the UN.
The wealthiest 5% alone – the so-called “polluter elite” – contributed 37% of emissions growth between 1990 and 2015.
The authors want to deter SUV drivers and frequent fliers – and persuade the wealthy to insulate their homes well.
The report urges the UK government to reverse its decision to scrap air passenger duty on UK return flights.
And it wants ministers to re-instate the Green Homes Grant scheme they also scrapped recently.
The document has come from the UK-based Cambridge Sustainability Commission on Scaling Behaviour Change.
It’s a panel of 31 individuals who study people’s behaviour relating to the environment. They were tasked to find the most effective way of scaling up action to tackle carbon emissions.
Their critics say the best way to cut emissions faster is through technological improvements – not through measures that would prove unpopular.
But the lead author of the report, Prof Peter Newell, from Sussex University, told BBC News: “We are totally in favour of technology improvements and more efficient products – but it’s clear that more drastic action is needed because emissions keep going up.
“We have got to cut over-consumption and the best place to start is over-consumption among the polluting elites who contribute by far more than their share of carbon emissions.
“These are people who fly most, drive the biggest cars most and live in the biggest homes which they can easily afford to heat, so they tend not to worry if they’re well insulated or not.
“They’re also the sort of people who could really afford good insulation and solar panels if they wanted to.”
By Paul Homewood
One rule for them……………
The jet belonging to climate czar John Kerry’s family made its way to Idaho, where he and his wife have reportedly vacationed, as he traveled in Asia to promote the Biden administration’s message on the issue.
Flight records show that the jet left Boston late afternoon and landed in Hailey, Idaho, later that evening. It’s unclear what the trip was for but the Idaho Press reported last year that he and his wife, Teresa, have been part-time residents in the nearby Sun Valley for decades.
According to the State Department, the former secretary of state is currently on a trip through Asia that’s set to end on Friday. The trip, which started April 1, extends from Abu Dhabi to Dhaka and is intended "for consultations on increasing climate ambition" ahead of a climate summit hosted by President Biden.
In the past, Kerry has encountered scrutiny over use of his family jet while speaking out against climate change. Most notably, when Kerry took his jet to receive a climate award in Iceland, he called it "the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle."
Private jets have been estimated to emit upward of 40 times as much carbon per passenger as commercial flights.
FlightAware logs show that the jet traveled from Bedford, Massachusetts, to Martha’s Vineyard, which is also in Massachusetts, on March 26 and from Martha’s Vineyard to Boston on March 28.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kerry-family-jet-idaho-climate-tour
Beatrice Wind Farm Received £281 Million Subsidy Last Year
By Paul Homewood
h/t Joe Public
Beatrice windfarm is one of the offshore wind farms which is wholly owned and operated as a stand alone company. We can therefore learn a lot from their Annual Accounts:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC350248/filing-history
The wind farm has been fully operational since May 2019, so the latest Accounts reflect close to full operation. Revenue for the year was £372 million, of which £281million was government subsidy via Contracts for Difference:
Bad Advice From Govt Pension Scheme
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Wilson
NEST is is the government workplace pension scheme used by many employers. If their infantile advice on climate change is anything to go by, I would advise members to take their money out!
Climate change is the fight of our lives. We’re fast reaching the point of no return causing irreversible damage to nearly every aspect of our lives.
But it doesn’t have to be this way.
From food shortages to property damage to higher prices and smaller pensions, every degree that global temperature rises will come at a cost to our lives, the economy and the environment. This isn’t something we can tackle on an individual level. Governments and businesses around the world must take action now if something is to change.
We’re doing our part to limit global warming with our new climate change policy and are proud to be among the first UK pension providers to commit to transitioning to a net zero carbon strategy.
What are we facing?
Climate models indicate that the world’s temperature is likely to increase above 4C by the end of this century if things don’t change. This doesn’t just threaten the quality of our day-to-day lives. It’s a risk to virtually every sector of business and the wider economy itself.
Scientists believe that our best hope is to drastically reduce carbon emissions now, limiting the rise in global temperature to 1.5C above the level it was at the start of the modern industrial era. This is what most countries in the world have committed to in the Paris Agreement.
How will it affect you?
The economy and the environment are so closely linked that if we don’t act, the UK could see huge changes by the end of the century:
As could the rest of the world:
All this could significantly impact whether companies can make profits in the future, shrinking your pension pot while raising your costs of living.
Climate change won’t just affect your financial health either. Pollutants linked to climate change are known to cause cancer, asthma, strokes and heart disease, and air pollution alone causes 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year.
How can I help make a change?
You already are, along with over 9 million other Nest members. As a pension saver, you’re a stakeholder in global financial markets. Your Nest pension savings are held in everything from the world’s biggest companies to sectors like food or transport.
And it’s your pension that gives you power.
We manage over £12 billion on behalf of members like you. By changing how this money is invested, we stand a chance of changing how businesses and industries around the world operate. That’s why our new climate change policy matters.
You’re not alone in wanting to build a better world.
- 68% of UK savers want their investments to consider people and planet alongside profits
- three quarters of Nest members say responsible investment is important to them
- 71% of Brits would opt for a fully or partially sustainable pension if they had the choice
Providers that don’t take climate change into account risk more than your money. They risk your future.
That means we’ll:
- transition our portfolio to the 1.5C global warming limit
- put more money into renewables and green technology
- encourage businesses we invest in to act sustainably
- reduce how much money goes to the biggest greenhouse gas polluters
- stop investing in the most harmful fossil fuels
- work to reduce our portfolio’s impact on nature and biodiversity
- stop working with companies and fund managers that aren’t aligned with the Paris Agreement
- partner with non-profit campaigners like Climate Action 100+ to address environmental issues and encourage businesses to change
- lobby for the UK pensions sector to be more transparent about its contribution to climate change
We’re one of the first UK pension providers to commit to these standards but it shouldn’t stop with us. By the end of 2018, UK pension savers collectively invested £6.1 trillion in the global economy. If money talks, that amount of money shouts – and we want to encourage our fellow providers to make climate change a priority too.
For a start, climate change does not create pollution. As for the 4C by the end of the century, I know of no serious investor who would worry about what may or not happen years after he is dead!
Aviva Blame El Nino On Climate Change
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey.
Aviva are jumping on the climate bandwagon again!
This is written by Will Ballard, Aviva’s Portfolio Manager:
In 2007, when FIFA announced Brazil would host the 2014 World Cup, President Lula da Silva saw an opportunity. Buoyed by strong commodity prices, international investment flows, an appreciating currency and low inflation, Brazil’s economy was growing at seven per cent annually and showed no sign of slowing down. Lula wanted to use the football tournament to showcase his newly prosperous nation on the international stage.
Brazil spent an estimated $12 billion on its preparations for the World Cup, with around $4 billion lavished on building or refurbishing 12 stadiums. The most egregious expense was perhaps the $300 million that went on the development of the Arena da Amazônia in Manaus, a city nestled in the Amazon rainforest. Three lives were lost in the construction of the 40,000-seat stadium, which hosted only four matches.1
This massive white elephant project was not the only policy mistake Brazil made as the tournament approached. By 2014, the government – now led by Dilma Rousseff – was struggling to balance the books. With the commodity super-cycle at an end, it was no longer able to rely on exports to fund its profligate spending. Making matters worse, President Rousseff faced a corruption investigation. Brazil’s exit from the World Cup that summer, following a humiliating 7-1 defeat to Germany, was symbolic of a sharp reversal in the country’s fortunes.
Throughout these troubles, there was one risk no-one had anticipated – a change in the weather. The early signs of El Niño were originally spotted by fishermen off the coast of South America; a reduction in the upwelling of nutrient-rich cool water in their fishing grounds meant slimmer pickings than usual. This periodic warming in sea-surface temperatures across the Pacific was to have broader climatic implications for global temperatures and rainfall.
The El Niño oscillation occurs every two to seven years, and for Brazil it means hotter, drier periods. When it fell between 2014 and 2016, the impact was unprecedented. The resulting drought caused both water and power shortages, as energy usage spiked due to greater demand for air conditioning. Hydropower stations were unable to operate due to low water levels. At one point, the four reservoirs in the Paraiba system, which supply tap water to Rio De Janeiro, dropped to one per cent of their measured capacity, their lowest-ever level.2
Agriculture accounted for over 70 per cent of water usage in Brazil, so it was no surprise the sector was badly impacted by the drought. In 2014, corn production fell by 26 per cent and sugar cane by 12 per cent. Yields of soy, one of the country’s largest exports, fell 17 per cent.3 The coffee bean crop was similarly hard hit, shrinking by eight per cent in 2014 and a further five per cent in 2015.4
Brazil had been one of the fastest-growing economies in the world; now it was suffering its worst recession since records began. Inflation spiked to over ten per cent, with food inflation peaking at 17 per cent. GDP contracted 5.5 per cent. The currency collapsed.
Climate risk
The United Nations estimates 3.2 billion people live in agricultural areas that experience water shortages. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals seek to ensure the availability and sustainable management of freshwater and sanitation for all. Despite this, freshwater resources have declined by 20 per cent per person over the last two decades, while demand is only increasing.7
What both Brazil and Turkey show us are the real-world implications of these trends for middle-income countries. And the situation in these nations is especially concerning given that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent due to climate change.
Climate change is making droughts and floods more destructive during the El Niño cycle
While El Niño and La Niña are natural phenomena, human-driven climate change worsens their effects. According to a recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US, climate change is making droughts and floods more destructive during the El Niño cycle.8 And yet the worst-affected countries persist with policies that damage the environment. Under its current president, Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil has accelerated deforestation in the Amazon.
Drought and water scarcity were historically seen by investors as issues only poorer countries in East Africa had to deal with. In the era of rampant climate change, this is no longer the case: middle-income economies now look vulnerable too. Recent events in Brazil and Turkey show governments that fritter away money on white elephant projects may lack the resources to react when a crisis hits, risking serious damage to their economies, markets and asset prices. Investors should take note.
There may be all sorts of reasons not to invest in Brazil, but climate change is not one, as this clown would have known if he had bothered to check the data.
MWP & LIA In The Ross Sea
By Paul Homewood
We saw yesterday how 19th explorers discovered that the Ross Ice Shelf receded by 30 miles in the 19thC.
To add to that picture, this study found that elephant seals migrated to the Victoria Land Coast in the Ross Sea about 8000 years ago, as the region became warmer, and stayed there till about 1000 years ago when sea ice returned.
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000554
Meanwhile another study shortly afterwards found evidence that the Ross Sea cooled significantly during the Little Ice Age:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X11002925
This all indicates that modern glacier retreats are just part of a much longer climatic cycle.
End Economic Growth Says Monbiot
By Paul Homewood
For years, we were assured it was all about the climate. There have of course been many hints otherwise, but COVID now seems to have given the eco-extremists confidence to come out into the open:
The COVID-19 pandemic is not a random event. It is a symptom of a global economic system that is destroying the living planet.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a nightmare for all of us. As vaccines are deployed across the world, many hope we’ll soon be able to return to our previous lives. But before we rush to resume ‘business as usual’, we should pause to consider where COVID came from.
Like many infectious diseases, COVID-19 has its origins in the encroachment of human activity into the natural world. As countries have sought to grow their economies, activities like logging, mining, road building, agricultural expansion and urbanisation cause massive habitat destruction.
This in turn has brought people into ever closer contact with wild animal species, many of which carry dangerous pathogens and diseases. When humans venture into ecosystems and destroy the habitats of wild species, these diseases can jump from animals into the human population.
Around three-quarters of new diseases that infect humans come from other animals. In the case of COVID-19, scientists believe the virus originated in the wild bat population before being transmitted to humans
Around three-quarters of new diseases that infect humans come from other animals.
COVID-19 is not a random event. It is a symptom of a global economic system that is destroying the living planet and killing off our magnificent wildlife.
COVID-19 might be the first pandemic many of us have experienced. But unless we change course, it will almost certainly not be the last.
So before we spend billions of dollars reinstating the status quo, perhaps it’s time for a rethink. In order to prevent future pandemics and tackle ecological and climate breakdown, governments must take a different path. What would this look like?
It means investing to decarbonise the global economy as fast as possible, and shrinking our environmental footprint. It means bringing an end to destructive activities like deforestation and intensive mining. And it means ending our addiction to economic growth and putting the needs of people and the planet first.
After the financial crisis in 2008, we bailed out the banks. In 2021, we need to bail out the planet.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/2008-we-bailed-out-banks-2021-we-need-bail-out-planet/
The whole basis of his argument, that COVID is the result of human civilisation, is of course absurd. Humans have always come into contact with the animal world. Indeed nowadays there is probably less contact, since most of us live in cities. The past certainly had more than its share of animal borne disease, such as the Black Death, malaria and yellow fever. Almost certainly the Spanish Flu and goodness knows how many similar viruses in the past came from animals too.
It is thanks to the human civilisation which he mocks, that most of these diseases are either wiped out or contained.
