Skip to content

Climate Fund Smoke & Mirrors

January 19, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

Readers may recall this story from last month, about Britain’s largesse  at the latest Paris climate summit:

 

image

The UK will pledge a £140m fund to tackle the effects of climate change on poorer countries, at the One Planet Summit in Paris today. 

The announcement comes as the UK international trade secretary Liam Fox pledged £18m to help 51 countries “trade their way out of poverty”, at the World Trade Organisation’s Ministerial Conference in Argentina on Monday.

Prime minister Theresa May will announce the £140m funding to show the UK’s commitment to climate change, which is expected to be a “boost” to poorer communities around the world most affected by climate change.

Impacts on these countries include deforestation, vulnerability to natural disasters and climate extremes.

May said: “Tackling climate change and mitigating its effects for the world’s poorest are among the most critical challenges that we face.

“That is why I am joining other world leaders in Paris today for the One Planet Summit and committing to stand firmly with those on the front line of extreme weather and rising sea levels.”

Fox said trade was one of the “greatest liberators of the world’s poor”, adding that global trade had transformed countries while creating more jobs.

He said: “As we prepare to leave the EU, we can move forward with more purpose, supporting developing countries to transform their economies through trade and resisting attempts to put up barriers to the open and free trade which has already benefited millions worldwide.”

At the climate change summit, May will also announce £15m of support for the reconstruction on the island of Dominica in the Caribbean, which is most affected by extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. The European Union also pledged €9bn (£7.94bn) at the summit.

The UK will also give £8m of additional funding to other individual countries and territories in the Caribbean to help them become more resilient, including better crisis and response operations, training and improvement to communications systems, casualty management and mapping high risk areas, the government said.

The funding will include an additional £30m through the Department for International Development’s (DfID) Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters programme.

The UK will also commit to a further £87m through the DfID’s Forest Governance, Markets and Climate programme to help local communities, who depend on forests in the fight against illegal logging, and support trade in legal timber. 

http://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2017/12/uk-pledges-cash-climate-change-and-tackling-poverty

 

Intrigued, I FOI’d the DfID, with two questions:

 

image

 

The answers came back yesterday:

 

image

image

 

Spread over four years, £140 million does not appear quite so generous.

But the real news is that, as I suspected, this is not “new money” at all, as it simply comes from the existing overseas aid budget. To spend this £140 million on these doubtlessly worthy projects (which have little to do with “climate change” anyway) will mean that less money is spent on other aid projects.

If that means less money is siphoned off into dictators’ Swiss bank accounts, then fine.

But it is certainly not the “new money” that developing countries feel they were promised at Copenhagen, and again at Paris in 2015.

 

As ever, the UK Government may talk the talk, but it rarely walks the walk!

Advertisements

Warmest Year Evah (Except For The Others!)

January 19, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

The BBC gleefully reports on the annual “warmest year evah” circus.

 

image

Manmade climate change is now dwarfing the influence of natural trends on the climate, scientists say.

Last year was the second or third hottest year on record – after 2016 and on a par with 2015, the data shows.

But those two years were affected by El Niño – the natural phenomenon centred on the tropical Pacific Ocean which works to boost temperatures worldwide.

Take out this natural variability and 2017 would probably have been the warmest year yet, the researchers say.

Read more…

How Regulations Made California’s Fires Worse

January 19, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

From American Thinker:

 image

After raging through almost all of December, the so-called Thomas fire, California’s largest wildfire ever recorded, was finally contained on January 12.  While the worst is behind us (for now), the fact that last year’s wildfires so violently spun out of control puts the spotlight on the Golden State’s government and its lack of fire prevention measures.

The fires across the state caused unprecedented damage and loss of life.  Unsurprisingly, California governor Jerry Brown was quick to pin the blame on climate change for the forest fires’ ferocity and extraordinary longevity this season.  Whatever truth there may be to this, it would be a mistake to gloss over how misguided policies and regulations have hurt California’s ability to prevent and respond to fires.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances.  For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense.  However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.

During a congressional hearing in May, California congressman Tom McClintock blasted environmentalists for having fervently opposed such measures since the early 1970s.  Instead, they have been advocating that forests be left to their own devices – despite the fact that thousands of years of history shows that forests need to be appropriately maintained in order to reap all their benefits and reduce the risk of fires.  This understanding of the environment has too often been trumped by politics in California.

When a 2013 environmental impact report advocated the benefits of large-scale vegetation management in San Diego County, activists violently rejected its conclusions.  As in the decades before, concerns over wildlife and environmental impacts were ultimately more important than the safety of fellow citizens, with the result that brush and dead vegetation were allowed to accumulate unimpeded for more than forty years.

Ironically, 2013 also saw a range of massive wildfires across California that were exacerbated by the U.S. Forest Service failing to follow through on crucial tree-thinning projects.  The same happened immediately before the recent devastating fires, with the U.S. Forest Service once again neglecting to clear brush in the woods around Los Angeles as originally planned.

Worse still, government agencies have actively stymied rescue efforts.  In this case, it was CAL FIRE withholding a license for a Boeing 747 Global SuperTanker firefighting plane, capable of dropping almost 20,000 gallons of fire retardant on the inferno below.  Although the license was finally granted in September, precious months had passed during which the plane could have deployed to offer much needed fire-suppressing support across California.  The Boeing subsequently proved instrumental in containing much of the fires ravaging California in December – less than a week after Donald Trump declared the California fires a national emergency.

As the SuperTanker example shows, private resources are indispensable for a swift and effective response in national emergencies.  Top-of-the-line equipment like the SuperTanker is heavily reliant on functioning fixed-base operators (FBOs) for refueling and replenishing payloads.  In the midst of the fires, a campaign to impose price regulations on these very FBOs emerged, threatening to undermine the first line of defense in providing essential services during natural disasters.

If history is a lesson, more regulation certainly isn’t what’s needed in times of emergency, especially not if these regulations seek to counteract the market forces necessary for rescue efforts to continue their operations.  Luckily, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reached the same conclusions amid the December wildfires.  In a document published on December 7, the FAA strongly argued that such price controls are unnecessary, seeing how FBOs need to adapt to the pressures of business realities that are often beyond their control.

While the FAA acted for the greater good in this instance, the same can’t be expected from California’s authorities.  Luckily, other states have been taking note.  Oregon, a state equally prone to wildfires, has successfully prevented the outbreak of large-scale fires since it implemented comprehensive thinning and pruning measures in the 1990s.  Meanwhile, citizens in New Mexico are petitioning the state legislature to facilitate forest management so that fires at the scale of those in California can be prevented.

California would be smart to cut the environmentalist zeal from its policies and follow Oregon’s or New Mexico’s lead.  A catastrophe the likes of which we witnessed in 2017 should more than suffice to trigger a rethinking of old approaches.  Deregulation means not only standing up to the green lobby, but also protecting citizens’ lives and homes in national emergencies.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/how_regulations_made_californias_fires_worse.html#ixzz54cp5XAUI

How The US Temperature Record Has Changed

January 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

The topic of how the US temperature record has been massively altered in recent years has been well covered by Tony Heller, myself and others in the past.

Nevertheless it is worth summarising again.

 

In 1999, James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato of GISS published a paper, “GISS analysis of surface temperature change”, which included this graph of the US temperature record at that time.

fig1x

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

1999_Hansen_ha03200f

 

 

The drop in temperatures from the 1930s to the 1970s is absolutely clear.

 

The paper commented:

 

The U.S. temperature increased by about 0.8°C between the 1880s and the 1930s, but it then fell by about 0.7°C between 1930 and the 1970s and regained only about 0.3°C of this between the 1970s and the 1990s. The year 1998 was the warmest year of recent decades in the United States, but in general, U.S. temperatures have not recovered even to the level that existed in the 1930s. This contrasts with global temperatures, which have climbed far above the levels of the first half of this century.

 

This dichotomy with global temperatures clearly posed a problem for Hansen and co. So they wrote a brief, which attempted to explain why the US temperature trend was out of line:

Read more…

The Lancet Accused Of Sacrificing The Poor On Pollution

January 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

I have highlighted much of the mendacious nonsense coming out of the Lancet concerning climate change and pollution issues.

Now a hard hitting report by Mikko Paunio, a specialist in public health matters has destroyed both the credibility and integrity of two of the Lancet’s recent papers on pollution.

The GWPF, who commissioned the paper, report:

 

image

London, 18 January: A pair of influential reports published by the medical journal, The Lancet, are a “gross distortion” of public health science and threaten to devastate public health in the developing world. That is the warning by eminent epidemiologist Mikko Paunio.
The Lancet Commissions on Pollution and Health have claimed that the third world is suffering appalling health effects from industrial pollution. But as Professor Paunio explains, this is far from the truth:
“Most of the deaths that they say are caused by industrial air pollution are actually caused by domestic heating and cooking with renewable energy such as wood and dung, and most of the deaths from diarrhea that they say are caused by polluted water are actually caused by poor hygiene because the poor do not have enough water for washing.”

 

Read more…

What Is The Earth’s Ideal Temperature?

January 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

Nuttercelli is at it again in the Guardian:

 

image

In an interview with Reuters last week, Trump’s EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said,

The climate is changing. That’s not the debate. The debate is how do we know what the ideal surface temperature is in 2100?

Pruitt’s goal is to sow doubt on behalf of his oil industry allies in order to weaken and delay climate policies. Shifting the ‘debate’ toward ‘the ideal surface temperature’ achieves that goal by creating the perception that we don’t know what temperature we should aim for. It’s in line with his boss’ recent ignorant tweet suggesting that “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming.”

I spoke with a number of climate scientists who agreed that to minimize the risks associated with rapid human-caused climate change, from a practical standpoint the ‘ideal temperature’ is as close to the current one as possible.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/17/scott-pruitt-insincerely-asked-whats-earths-ideal-temperature-scientists-answer

 

I think we can take it then that Nuttercelli and his band of “climate scientists”, who include the ever reliable Stefan Rahmstorf, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann and Naomi Oreskes (who is not even a climate scientist), would agree that they don’t want to go back to the cold climate of the Little Ice Age.

Yet, presumably if they had been asked the same question 200 years ago, they would have said the same as they are – let’s keep things the same.

But has it not occurred to any of these geniuses that people in 100 years time will be perfectly happy with their climate then, just the same as Katharine Hayhoe is now?

Why do they have so little faith in the ability of human kind to adapt to whatever conditions they are faced with at the time?

After all, people throughout the world have to cope with far greater day to day, and year to year, variability in their weather than the tiny amounts of warming they may have to contend with over many decades.

Floods and drought, hot and cold, rain or snow, people have always coped, and always will. Furthermore, human ingenuity being what it is, they usually end up better off than before.

It is economic and technological development that makes societies better off, and more resilient in the face of weather and other natural disasters. Not a return to the dark ages.

Goldstein Investigation: $10 Million LAPD Electric BMWs Appear Unused Or Misused

January 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Joe Public

 

An investigation by CBS Los Angeles uncovers massive waste on EVs by LA Police:

 

image

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA) — The Los Angeles Police Department made a big deal about going green with a fleet of electric BMWs.

But our David Goldstein has discovered some of those cars are sitting in the garage.

Here is a full script of Goldstein’s investigation:

 

Read more…

Destroying the city to save the robocar

January 18, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

h/t Dave Ward

 

A thoughtful article in the Register about driverless cars:

 

image

Special report Behind the mostly fake "battle" about driverless cars (conventional versus autonomous is the one that captures all the headlines), there are several much more important scraps. One is over the future of the city: will a city be built around machines or people? How much will pedestrians have to sacrifice for the driverless car to succeed?

Read more…

Global Temperature In 2017: Not A Resurgence Of Global Warming

January 17, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

From GWPF:

 

image

Global temperature data for the last 12 months refutes the idea that the warmth of 2017 was due to a resurgence of global warming. In fact, the world has been cooling.

 

Read more…

Deben’s Fantasy World

January 17, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

More propaganda from Harrabin:

 

image

Three-fifths of new cars must be electric by 2030 to meet greenhouse gas targets, ministers have been warned.

Homes also need to be built to a higher standard, the Committee on Climate Change – the official watchdog – says.

The government says the UK is cutting emissions faster than any other G7 nation – and the committee agrees there has been a big shift under Theresa May.

However, it says the UK will fall short of its ambitions unless ministers do more to turn pledges into reality.

The warning comes less than a week after the prime minister launched a 25-year plan to protect the environment, including eradicating all avoidable plastic waste by 2042.

The committee agrees the government’s recently-published Clean Growth Plan is a big improvement, and says the UK has been a world leader in cutting emissions so far.

But it argues that the plan still doesn’t offer detailed policies to meet legal carbon targets.

Carbon capture from industry must be made to happen, it says, and wood and plastics should be banned from landfill in order to re-use them.

More trees should be planted to soak up carbon dioxide, with a view to creating 70,000 hectares (173,000 acres) of new woodland by 2025, and farming must do more to cut emissions.

‘Major change’

Industry, too, is urged to take greater responsibility.

The committee’s chairman Lord Deben, told BBC News: "If you’re going to sell an electric car your dealers have got to understand these things, so training dealers is essential.

"If you’re running a big fossil fuel company, you have to start thinking about the realities of when, not if, because it is not if any longer, we use a lot less fossil fuels."

He also criticised construction firms for only doing the "absolute minimum" required on building energy efficient homes.

The committee points out that better insulated homes would cut people’s bills as well as tackle climate change, and calls for more incentives to encourage "able to pay" households to install efficiency measures.

 

Chairman

Lord Deben said the Clean Growth Strategy had "changed the tone" of the government on the issue.

 

"These issues have been put into the centre of government policy – that’s a major change."

But, he said, ambitions alone are not enough.

"The strategy doesn’t deliver enough action to meet emissions targets in the 2020s and 2030s," he said.

"The government’s policies will need to be firmed up as a matter of urgency and supplemented with additional measures if the UK is to deliver on legal commitments and secure its position as an international climate change leader."

He added: "All departments now need to look at their contribution towards cutting emissions – including the Department for Transport."

The committee wants 30% to 70% of new cars to be ultra-low emission by 2030, as well as up to 40% of new vans, as part of efforts to phase out sales of conventional petrol and diesel versions by 2040.

Currently, fewer than 5% of new car sales are "alternatively fuelled", which also includes hybrid models.

Prof Michael Grubb, from University College London, said: "There are plenty of good ideas out there on low-carbon energy, cutting emissions from buildings, clean transport and more, but as the committee rightly points out, concrete plans need to be put in place, and soon.

"The government is making all the right noises on support for the low-carbon economy, but these must be turned into action: we need a year of decision-making."

Richard Black, from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, agreed: "We’re not on track to meet emissions goals that kick in in just five years’ time.

"That leaves ministers little time for enquiries and consultations – they’re going to have to put new policies in place fast."

Mr Black suggested quick-win policies including: cutting company car tax for electric vehicles; repealing the ban on onshore wind power (the cheapest form of electricity generation), and re-starting the programme for Zero Carbon Homes.

‘Ambitious’

A business department spokesperson said: "The scrutiny of the independent Committee on Climate Change plays an important role.

"The UK has reduced emissions on a per-person basis faster than any other G7 nation, and our clean growth strategy is the next ambitious milestone in our work to de-carbonise the UK.

"We have always said it is only the start of a process.

"Our proposals will continue to evolve – whether in response to costs of renewable energy coming down, improved evidence about climate change, wider trends in technology or the economic opportunities delivered through our industrial strategy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42709763

 

It’s obviously too much to expect Harrabin to use his critical faculties.

For instance:

Read more…