Image: What global warming? Staggering study says temperatures rose more BEFORE 1997
From the Manhattan Contrarian
As a basic starting point, I suggest that on any story of political importance in the New York Times, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of what they report. Consider that lead story on the front page of yesterday’s Sunday print edition: “World Leaders Move Forward on Climate Change, Without U.S.” Scary! The U.S. is getting completely isolated from the world community!
In a final communiqué at the conclusion of the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, the nations took “note” of Mr. Trump’s decision to abandon the pact and “immediately cease” efforts to enact former President Barack Obama’s pledge of curbing greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. But the other 19 members of the group broke explicitly with Mr. Trump in their embrace of the international deal, signing off on a detailed policy blueprint outlining how their countries could meet their goals in the pact.
You can definitely count on Pravda not to look into what these other 19 countries have promised to do and let you know if there is any substance to it. So the hard work falls once again to the Manhattan Contrarian. If you just Google the letters “INDC” (“Intended Nationally Determined Contribution”) along with the name of a country, you can find out exactly what that country has promised to do as part of the Paris Agreement. So let’s take a look at what a few of the big countries are up to.
- China. We already know that answer from my post just last week. China, through its companies, is planning to build over the course of the next decade or so well more than double the number of coal power plants that the U.S. has today. Its INDC calls for its proceeding to increase carbon emissions as much as it wants through 2030, and only then (when everyone in China presumably has electricity and a couple of cars) to level things off. By that time its emissions will probably be at least triple those of the U.S.
- India. India’s INDC openly admits that it intends to increase its electricity supply by more than triple between now and 2030, with no commitment whatsoever as to how much of that will come from fossil fuels. Oh, they say that they plan to lower the “emissions intensity” of their energy generation, and greatly expand (useless) wind and solar capacity, as well as nuclear. Whoopee!
- Indonesia. These things get more comical the more of them you read. The first thing you learn in reading Indonesia’s INDC is that the large majority of its emissions come from burning down the rain forest (“most emissions (63%) are the result of land use change and peat and forest fires”) and very little from using fossil fuels for energy (“fossil fuels contribute[e] approximately 19% of total emissions”). So they’ll promise to burn down less of the rain forest, and nothing whatsoever as to reducing use of fossil fuels for energy. Their (completely illusory) “reduction target” of 29% by 2030 is not against a fixed amount of past usage (like the United States’ benchmark of 2005 emissions), but rather is against what they call a “business as usual” scenario of projected future emissions that are a multiple of today’s.
- Russia. What, you didn’t know that Russia was a member of the G20? What is the chance that Russia would make an honest promise about emissions reductions? Their INDC calls for reducing emissions by 25-30% below 1990 by 2030. Impressive! Wait a minute! The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since. In other words, Russia’s supposed “commitments” again represent increases from today’s level of emissions. Yet another total scam.
- Germany. Germany is part of the supposed EU commitment to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Oh, but now that Germany has gotten its electricity production from renewables up to about 30%, it seems that it has hit a wall, and its carbon emissions have actually gone up for both of the last two years (2015 and 2016), according to Clean Energy Wire. Exactly how do they plan to meet their goal? Excellent question.
Ref.: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/12/looks-like-global-action-on-climate-change-is-dead/
President Trump boldly proclaims a winning U.S. climate; energy policy at G20 summit
By Larry Hamlin,
The mainstream media is so obsessed with pushing politically contrived and scientifically flawed climate alarmism and renewable energy activism that the stories reporting what happened at the recent G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany completely missed the major successes President Trump achieved at the summit.
President Trump demanded and obtained a clear statement of the U.S. rejection of the Paris Climate Agreement and just as important a statement recognizing the appropriate role of efficient use of fossil fuels as an energy resource for the future with both these statements contained in the “Final Communique” of the G20 summit.
These clear and direct policy statements of the U.S. position on these topics, which some G20 members are unhappy with, sets the agenda for President Trump relative to how his administration will proceed in conducting business at home and abroad regarding climate and energy policy.
The U.S. will no longer be wasting tens of billions of dollars funding the UN’s absurd slush fund euphemistically called the “Green Climate Fund” which was nothing but a politically driven wealth redistribution scheme.
Nor will the U.S. proceed with any future emissions reduction commitments that harm its economy or commit to huge high cost, poor reliability renewable energy program nonsense while ignoring much more viable cost effective, reliable and environmentally beneficial use of fossil fuels such as natural gas.
No longer will U.S. climate and energy policy be incompetently pursued under Obama era scientifically unsupported climate alarmism baloney and idiotic energy strangling policies.
The U.S. – unlike Angela Merkel’s Germany – has significantly reduced its emissions by increased use of more economical free energy market place available natural gas thus maintaining lower energy costs which enhance our countries business competitiveness.
In sharp contrast Germany’s mandated use of high cost renewables has increased its energy costs dramatically. Additionally politically driven nuclear plant government required closures along with renewable energy reliability shortcomings (2016 wind capacity increased 10% but generation increased less than 1%, solar capacity increased 2.5% but generation declined) have increased coal use driving up Germany’s emissions the last two years.
President Trump’s climate and energy policies have turned the U.S. into an energy resource rich juggernaut which now has access to huge amounts of economical energy resources at its disposal that will enhance America’s global competitiveness.
Additionally the U.S. has the ability to provide energy resources to global business partners with whom we chose to conduct business.
The climate and energy statements of the U.S. as reflected in the “Final Communique” from the G20 summit clearly articulate the policy of President Trump. These policies well position the U.S. for competing and succeeding in future business markets both at home and around the world.
The phony contrived world of liberal mainstream media thinking which falsely promotes climate alarmism and renewable energy activism has completely missed the successes that President Trump has achieved at the G20 summit.
These successes clearly enhance the global energy and business competitiveness of the U.S. while continuing to provide our country with environmental benefits.
The unhappiness of some G20 members with President Trumps climate and energy policy likely reflects the realization by these members that the U.S. is far better prepared for succeeding in future global business competition under his policies than those following the ill=conceived course of the EU’s elitist climate alarmist, renewable energy activist leadership.
