Climate Politics

UK Crippled by Own Climate Policy (Darwall)

Posted on by Ron Clutz

In the video Rupert Darwall is interviewed by Lee Hall discussing the plight of UK obsessing over global warming/climate change.  For those preferring to read, below is an excerpted transcript lightly edited from closed captions.  In italics with my bolds and added images. (RD is Rupert Darwall and LH is Lee Hall)

Keynotes

Britain is in a deep in a growth trap and we’ll remain in this growth trap. You know someone says if you’re in a hole stop digging. What we’re doing with Net Zero, we’re just digging harder and harder.

 

Today environmentalism is against economic growth and the green policies allow the ultra wealthy to feel virtuous. If you’re a multi-billionaire, like say Mike Bloomberg, you love it. Because what can you do to protect yourself from people complaining about your wealth? Well I’m saving the planet he says.

 

Europe’s green push is bringing economic benefit but not to Europe. German trade unions were promised during at the beginning of the energy transition there would be lots of green jobs and there were . . . in China. That’s where the green jobs went.

Green Policies and Economics

LH:  Let’s talk about green policies and economics and how to really understand it all.

RD: So setting the scene: 2008 was quite a tough year and we had the financial crisis but then we also had the Climate Change Act. And was there a connection between Britain’s economic woes and then the introduction of what was arguably the most extreme green policies in the world.

The British economy was deeply scarred by the financial crisis and its trend growth of productivity has basically flatlined since 2008, and as you point out 2008 is the same year that parliament passed the Climate Change Act. Which as a result saw huge amounts of capital deployed on very low yielding to negative yielding assets in the power generation sector; namely wind and solar.

It’s very difficult to disentangle the long-term effects of the financial crisis and the so-called energy transition. But it is unquestionably the case that mandating very aggressive decarbonization worsens the productive potential of the economy. To give you an idea of how bad is the energy transition for a Net Zero: The International Energy Agency produced a net zero plan, and by 2030 under its Net Zero assumptions, the global energy sector will be employing 25 million more people using 16 and a half trillion more dollars of capital. 16 and a half trillion dollars more Capital using vast land areas of the combined size of Mexico, France, California, New Mexico and Texas to produce 7% less energy.

So the the critical thing to understand about the energy transition
is it means you need more more resources to produce less.

That’s exactly what we’re seeing, what effect the push for Renewables has had on our Energy prices, and thus on our economy and our competitiveness. Well it’s made Britain one of the most expensive places in the world for businesses in terms of of the electricity bills. We’re seeing steel making basically being put out of business in this country. We’re seeing oil refining with the Grangemouth oil refinery being closed. The petrochemical industry is going to have a very hard time to survive.

So a lot of industry is basically going to be wiped out. But then you look at the automotive industry where we have effectively mandates for EV adoption requiring rising proportions of car sales must be EV. If car manufacturers don’t meet those targets, they get taxed and that will basically lead to almost obliterating the British automotive industry, apart from some really very upscale names like Bentley. Essentially you’re looking at the death of the British automotive sector.

LH: Could you give us a a Layman’s introduction to what’s happened with wind power in Britain and what this teaches us about environmentalism?

RD: In 2022 Boris Johnson said offshore wind is the the cheapest form of electricity in the country. It was a line fed to him by Carbon Brief, which is heavily funded by the European Climate Foundation, which in turn is funded by multi-billion philanthropic foundations in the US. It is pure propaganda; there is not any basis for saying that.

Remember that at the time of the energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, then about 40% of the increase of the natural gas price was actually artificial carbon taxes and the price of carbon. So take that that out; these are completely artificial. This cost isn’t about supply and demand of fossil fuels, it is simply government imposed taxes to basically tax natural gas production out of the system.

Then offshore wind is inherently expensive. If you think about it, putting very large wind turbines in the middle of a hostile marine environment like the North Sea you need to have a big question mark over it. This defies common sense. What happened was the wind industry telling the government and the government believing that the cost of offshore wind was about 50 pounds per megawatt hour. In fact analysis of the accounting data for the financial entities shows that the break even price of North Sea power above 100 pounds per megawatt hour.

Basically the wind industry had conned the government into saying wind is cheap. And of course then they’ve now turned around and said actually our costs are a lot higher than you thought. But you’ve got the climate change act which gives a legal Duty on the government to reach Net Zero. So if you don’t give us more subsidy you’ll be defying your legal duty to reach Net Zero, and we just might take you to court to to have the courts decide whether you are.

LH: We heard recently Constraint Payments that there may be a watchdog investigation into wind farms for overcharging on constraint payments, the constraint payments being getting paid to not produce electricity. Can you help us understand the logic behind this? So they get paid to not produce something then they’re overcharging on the nothing?

RD: Yes, the problem is kind of obvious when you see that the more wind capacity you have, when the wind’s blowing the more electricity is produced and that creates two problems. It may be in excess of demand so you have a sharp fall in the wholesale price of electricity. Which incidentally means that gas generators start to be loss making, and it’s very bad for the economics of the power stations that are needed to keep the lights on. It can actually go negative so you pay them to constrain.

The other thing is that the wind turbines are in remote windy locations and they have to be connected to the grid and there’s simply not enough grid connection. So the wind operators are saying well you need to you need more grid infrastructure. Well that’s not free, but they won’t pay for it, they’re expecting consumers to to pick up the tab. And indeed ofgem the energy regulator has a sort of policy, what they call socializing the cost of grid connection, so they’re picked up by customers rather than by the investors.

LH: People that push Green Growth, the green policies, are talking about green growth and green jobs a lot of the time. It seems they they don’t really materialize and we end up paying more to produce less in a less efficient way. I mean is the environmentalism actually an anti-growth strategy?

RD: In Germany for example the German trade unions were promised during at the beginning of the so-called energy transition there’ll be lots of green jobs. And there’s workers in China, that’s where the green jobs are, they’re not in Europe. I mean Europe is not competitive, doesn’t have the low energy cost that China has. To make this kit is very, very energy intensive.

Since the limits to growth debates of the early 1970s in fact limits to growth came out in 1972, greens have argued that economic growth will destroy the planet. And therefore growth is bad. Now they’re turning around and saying well we’re going to have green growth. Well don’t believe it, you should really believe that they are against growth and that their policies are designed have to knock growth on the head. That’s what we’re seeing now.

This kind of degrowth, anti-growth push is very bad news, for people’s living standards, for their aspirations, for their wanting to have a better life for their children; having greater opportunities, more enjoyable ways to to spend money, to spend your life. All that’s true but also growth is needed to fund the state and to fund fund public services. Having had very little growth since 2008, essentially green policies mean endless austerity, it means extremely high tax rates. The tax burden in Britain is the highest it’s been since since I think the late 1940s, since the post war period. So yes it’s very bad both for private consumption but also for public consumption, also public investment.

Britain has a very low level of public investment. Also we have a very low level of private investment So all together in Britain we find ourselves deep in a growth trap. And we’ll remain in this growth trap. You know someone says if you’re in a hole stop digging. What we’re doing with Net Zero is we’re just digging harder and harder.

LH: Marxism policy is to take the means of production away from private ownership whereas what we’re looking at now is to almost destroy the means of production. I often make the point, that in some respects environmentalism is a more radical ideology. Marxism is about changing the ownership of the means of production. This is about changing the means of production themselves.

RD: The early marxists like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, actually if you look at the Communist Manifesto, there’s this great Paean of praise to capitalism and the Bourgeois for creating these fantastic means of production that that have unlocked hitherto unknown levels of prosperity. Of course as we just discussed the greens are very much against that. But what where the greens score is although it’s a radical ideology in terms of changing the means of production and degrading the means of production, it is very socially conservative. It doesn’t challenge the existing social hierarchy.

So if you’re a member of the a feudal royal family like King Charles, you like green stuff. It doesn’t say Dethrone him or cut off their heads. If you’re a plutocrat, if you’re a multi-billionaire like say Mike Bloomberg in the US, you love it because again is what you do to protect yourself from people complaining about your wealth. You say well I’m I’m saving the planet. I’m using my money, my business and my philanthropy is about saving the planet.

So on the one hand, economically it’s very radical, but socially it’s all about
maintaining existing social stratifications and of course denying
people lower down the means to rise up, to better themselves.

LH: So in the original Marxism the rich guy or the top was the bad guy, but now those Rich guys can actually be the good guys in the environmentalism.

RD: The way I put it is that green policies and decarbonization are ethics for the super wealthy. You see Bill Gates when he gets asked in interviews, what about your carbon foot footprint, he’s got so much money he pays an enormous amount to have carbon dioxide sucked out of the air, direct air capture. Well of course you can do that if you’re if you’re one of the richest people on the planet. But of course but for ordinary people when they take their holiday to the Mediterranean if you’re going to expect them to pay hundreds of pounds extra, I mean it’s not going to happen. So yes this is about the super wealthy.

Another example of virtuous contradictions would be to look at say wind farms or solar panel farms. That’s supposed to be good for the environment but they’re destroying the landscape and they’re destroying the habitats and they’re chopping up birds, killing insects and threatening whales.

LH: This environmentalism expects us to suspend our beliefs to some degree yeah this is what you pointed out is a fundamental contradiction deep in the heart of modern environmentalism. It’s like saying, to save the village we had to destroy it.

RD: It is absolutely clear that the environmentalists don’t care about this. Fundamentally it’s about the precautionary principle so you’ve got to be extra specially careful. But not when it comes to wind power; they’re perfectly okay with with wind turbines destroying nature, since they see it as saving the planet.

So for the greater good we need to ruin some of the planet
to save the the greater Planet.

The error is that as soon as you go from the local to the global, you sacrifice the local. And of course the global is an aggregate of the locals but for them it isn’t. This maniacal obsession with carbon dioxide emissions which has led to this tragedy that so much nature is being destroyed in the name of saving nature which it won’t do.

LH: When Rishi Sunak was Chancellor Exchequer he talked about rewiring the global financial system for Net Zero and then redeploying $130 trillion dollar of assets can you help us understand like how that would be possible and and tell us about the role that ESG is playing.

RD: He made that that speech at the Glasgow climate conference, in my opinion the single worst speech ever given by any Chancellor of Exchequer of either party. It was an absolutely appalling speech because essentially he’s saying private savings should be socialized to meet public policy objectives.  ESG is very much a part of the socialization of private savings. ESG is basically politics by other means Instead of government saying we’re going to pass laws and regulations and raise taxes and spend lots of money ourselves doing it. We are going to pass regulations and we’re going to browbeat business to do this for us.

There’s a twofold cost in that. One is to investors whose capital is being basically expropriated, is being used by politicians. And the other is to Consumers who pay higher prices as a result. ESG is a very malign trend in in finance. It’s very interesting to look what’s been happening in the United States where it’s in retreat for for basically two reasons. First of all because the anti-green stocks, if you like, that is the oil and gas sector suddenly in the covid recovery suddenly put on great growth spurt in the stock market. So if you weren’t in oil and gas stocks you lost out.

And secondly there’s been a big reaction in in Republican states against these ESG mandates. However in Britain and Europe ESG continues. The government is effectively telling businesses they have to come up with Net Zero transition plans, so ESG is alive well and doing a lot of damage in Britain and Europe. In the US we saw Texas divest about 8 billion dollars from Black Rock because of their ESG measures.

LH: I mean do you think we we’ll see anything like that here or is that very much an American approach

RD: If you like the strength and vibrancy of capitalism in America there is not a peep of that in the UK or Europe. Britain’s largest asset manager is LGIM, Legal & General Investment Management, and it is completely signed up to the Net Zero ESG agenda. There’s very little sign of a backlash. Local authorities turn to be green they want to they say they want they invest want to invest their pension funds in in some nice ESG ways. You have the university superannuation funds. Universities are all kind of green and woke and so forth. so there there is unfortunately.  You’ve seen that the London Stock Market until just recently, the last few weeks or so, has massively under performed the S&P 500 in the states.

LH: We seeing this contradiction again, but if I invest some money in a big investment firm, I’d expect them to use it to make money instead they’re using it for ideological means.

RD: There was this the ESG sales patter that it was doing well by doing good. They said we’ll use your money to do good and by the way you will make more money doing that than you otherwise would. That was always rubbish, it defied modern Financial portfolio Theory. But they got away with it until about 2022 when oil stocks did extremely well, had a very strong run on on the stock market.

The other thing to point out, ESG used to exclude any defense stocks because armor manufacturers are evil and so forth. Then Putin invades Ukraine and they suddenly wake up saying, well actually we should have defense contractors in there. So it’s completely muddled, an ill-defined concept that is made up as it goes along.

And there’s also why should it be fund managers taking these really important decisions about things like defense and National Security. These are preeminently decisions and policies for politicians not for market traders.

LH: You’ve very much got your finger on Green and economic issues. Are there any things coming up that you think we should keep an eye out for that are going surprises in the coming year?

RD: The big thing will be what happens in the American elections in November. On the one hand you have the Biden Administration which has set itself a net zero policy goal. The EPA is making a rule which will really take coal Off the Grid. It will cut massively the amount of natural gas power they’ve got on the grid. Biden has imposed a moratorium on new permits for export of natural gas.

On the other hand you have Trump who believes in what he calls American Energy dominance, he’s a hydrocarbon politician. He’s actually the only Western leader of the last couple of decades who is what I call an energy realist, who really understands energy. In his first term as president he pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. I think he would do the same again, and if that happens it will raise a huge question mark. What is the sense of persisting with Net Zero if the second largest emitter in the world pulls out of the the Paris agreement?

LH: I think it will it really kill Net Zero to anyone intelligent looking at it. We already had India and China not really buying in, but for America to join them?

RD: There is the conceit of the structure of the Paris agreement in these nationally determined contributions. So what China and India have been doing is they they’re not pledging any Cuts. They say well the carbon intensity of our economy will decline over time, which it will do anyway. One of the interesting facts of Britain is that when Rishi Sunak and British politicians boast about Britain cutting its carbon emissions. Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1972 and you know as economies mature they tend to become less carbon intensive; that’s been the case in Britain.

What has happened since 2008 as we discussed at the beginning, that has been massively accelerated with quite a lot of damaging effect on manufacturing, on Energy prices um on the grid reliability and so forth.

LH: If Trump did get in and and pulled out of the agreement in that way, do you think the UK will follow along or oppose? What do you think will happen here?

RD: I don’t think a Keir Starmer government would follow particularly given Ed Miliband in the position of Energy Secretary, who was Energy Secretary when the 2008 climate Act was passed. He was at the Copenhagen conference in 2009 and played quite an important part there. There is no way they are going to have second thoughts on it.

What will change or what could change is the conservatives in opposition might actually begin to smell the coffee and say actually this is this is a really bad idea this Net Zero costs us votes, it costs people money, and therefore we need to question it. so I think the I think it will change the dynamic of politics in this country particularly if Trump were to repeat what he did between 2016 and 2020.

LH: Will there be an opposition Conservative party think in like five years time we could be seeing an opposition conservative party that’s against a lot of the green policies and quite different from what it is now?

RD: That’s a possibility. The problem is that when when a party goes into opposition quite often as happened in 1997 essentially the conservative party had a collective nervous breakdown and gave up on conservatism. That’s essentially what happened and it went through that long period and it was completely enamored with with Tony Blair and the promise of David Cameron and George Osborne.

Well are we are going to emulate Tony Blair and we’re going to get the conservative party to love the leftward drift of British politics?  Will that happen again? Well Keir Starmer is no Tony Blair is he? But on the other hand the ability of the conservative party to really screw things up should never be underestimated.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

Eco-Loons War on Productive Working Class

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Brendan O’Neill writes at Spiked Greta’s class war.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The green ideology is the enemy of working people.

It was like a case study in indifference. There was privileged Gen Zer Greta Thunberg and other Euro eco-brats smiling and flicking peace signs as they called on the Dutch government to stop subsidising fossil-fuel companies. Meanwhile, the Dutch people, very few of whom are the offspring of opera singers with the ear of the world media, are suffering one of the largest spikes in energy prices in all of Europe. Their bills are through the roof. They’re reeling from the ‘pain of high energy costs’, as some in the media describe it.

And yet in sweeps giggling Greta and her barmy eco-army
to agitate for less government backing for energy production,
which would likely hike the price even more.

Rarely has the blinkered vanity, the sheer social apathy, of the green movement been so starkly illustrated. It was on Saturday that Greta and chums made their haughty demands of the Dutch government. In a protest at The Hague, hundreds of supporters of the upper-class death cult Extinction Rebellion marched behind a banner saying ‘STOP FOSSIL SUBSIDIES’. Some of the more spirited of these marchers against modernity, including Greta, broke away from the protest and headed to the A12 highway with the intention of blocking it. Because apparently it’s not enough to hit the pockets of the good people of the Netherlands – no, you have to ruin their weekend travel plans, too. Cops intervened and Greta and others were arrested for the crime of impeding a highway.

The press is full of gushing reports of Greta’s arrest. The BBC features an image of its favourite prophetess of doom yelling something as ticked-off cops drag her away. Our heroine only wanted to ‘block… a main road’ in protest against the ‘Dutch government’s tax concessions for companies connected to the fossil-fuel industry’, the Beeb says. What a turnaround from its reporting on the revolting Dutch farmers who also blocked highways, though in their case in opposition to lunatic Net Zero policies rather than in favour of them. Back then, the BBC said farmers had ‘clogged up’ roads and ‘snarled up motorways’ and created an ‘unsafe situation’. So when workers hold up highways, it’s horrifying, yet when time-rich right-on youths do it, it’s heroic? We see you, BBC.

The truth is there was nothing admirable about
Greta’s latest temper tantrum over fossil fuels.

A phrase like ‘fossil-fuel subsidies’ seems designed to get polite society gagging on its muesli, but what exactly are they? Essentially, they’re tax breaks from the Dutch government that make it cheaper for big companies to produce and use energy from oil, gas and coal. The biggest winner is the Dutch shipping industry, which benefits by around €6.7 billion. Call me a raging leftist, but it seems a good idea to me for the government to assist an industry that employs tens of thousands of people and contributes just shy of five per cent to Dutch GDP. Electricity generation is another big winner, benefitting to the tune of €5.3 billion.

Yes, electricity generation. Just think about this. In an energy crisis, Greta and Co are screaming in the streets about government assistance for… energy production! As the Dutch people, like others in Europe, look with fear and bewilderment at their ever-spiralling energy bills, noisy greens want the government to desubsidise companies that make energy. You don’t need a PhD in economics to see what the outcome would be – more cost offsetting to consumers, higher bills, greater angst.

Haven’t the Dutch suffered enough in the energy crisis already? Although it is being forecast that Dutch people’s energy bills will improve a little this year, for a while they were paying the most out of all EU member states. In 2023, they were stumping up €47.5 per 100 kWh, compared with an EU average of €28.9 per 100 kWh. It was the Netherlands’ over-reliance on gas imports, including from Russia, that plunged it into this crisis following the outbreak of war in Ukraine. And it responded by lifting the cap on energy production at coal-fired power plants and reversing its plans to cut back on gas production. To most folk, this will sound eminently sensible.

To eco-cranks, however, it is intolerable and the Dutch government must
at once stop subsidising such planet-mauling activities.
Seriously, why does anyone listen to these fruitcakes?

To me, it is wild that people would protest against energy production during an energy crisis. That they would have a fit of the vapours over energy subsidies, coal use and gas exploration at a time when people are struggling to keep the lights on. It’s not just dumb – it’s cruel. Imagine how out of touch with ordinary people’s concerns you would need to be to swan into a country experiencing a severe energy crisis and essentially say: ‘Stop supporting energy production.’ What was Greta thinking? She’s become a globetrotting enemy of progress, popping up all over the place to demand that we turn off the lights and don a hairshirt in keeping with her dystopian dream of restoring a pre-capitalist idyll that never actually existed.

It’s not just Greta, of course. The entire green ideology
is a menace to working people.

Climate-change alarmism is an unspoken class war in which the well-off and borderline aristocratic while away their days bemoaning the evils of the Industrial Revolution that liberated the rest of us from grinding poverty. Whether these Gretas, Poppies and Edreds are demanding less energy production, fewer cars on the roads, no more cheap flights or just ruining the snooker, the end result is the same: working people’s living standards and leisure pursuits are put in the crosshairs. More than 80 per cent of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels. The fossil-fuel phaseout that Greta and the rest dream about would plunge the world’s workers and poor into unimaginable penury. These people claim to be waging war on apocalypse but really they threaten to bring one about.

I far prefer the uprising of the Netherlands’ farmers. And other European farmers. They block roads in service of a cause that is the precise moral opposite of the luxuriant apocalypticism of the spoilt activist class. Namely, the protection of jobs and living standards from the religious fever of Net Zero. The insistence that food production not be undermined by the climate-change targets of out-of-touch Euro elites. The improvement of the lot of workers rather than the further immiseration of them in the phoney name of ‘saving the planet’.

There’s a class war being waged on the streets of Europe,
with postmodern eco-loons on one side and
actually productive people on the other. Choose your player.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

Update: Honolulu Climate Shakedown vs Big Oil

Posted on by Ron Clutz

As reported many places, a lawsuit against oil companies was allowed by Hawaii Supreme Court and the defendants (petitioners) have asked the US Supreme Court to hear their case by filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.  Excerpts from the petition are in italics below with my bolds, the citations omitted but with pages noted. The red title is a link to the entire petition.

In the referenced case, at issue is a technical point concerning which court has jurisdiction to rule on the shakedown lawsuit. Defendants ask the Supremes to decide the question:

Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate. 

On the merits of the case, the petition summarizes this way:

Like many other state and local governments in similar cases across the country, respondents filed this action against petitioners in local state court, asserting claims purportedly arising under state law to recover for harms that respondents allege they have sustained (and will sustain) because of the physical effects of global climate change. (pg. 3)

The Hawaii Supreme Court further held that, despite the complaint’s focus on the physical effects of climate change, interstate and international emissions were not the source of respondents’ injuries; petitioners’ marketing and public statements were. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision was incorrect, and it provides this Court with the ideal opportunity to address whether the state-law claims asserted in this nationwide litigation are even allowable before the energy industry is threatened with potentially enormous judgments. (.pg. 4)

Objections:  Asserting Facts Not in Evidence

In recapping the judicial history of this case, defense lawyers quote multiple times judges and plaintiffs made assertions in the absence of evidence. Examples include:

In American Electric Power, supra, the Court addressed the effect of the Clean Air Act on the federal common law governing air pollution. The Court held that the Act displaced nuisance claims under federal common law seeking the abatement of greenhouse-gas emissions from another State. Because the Clean Air Act “ ‘speaks directly’ to emissions of carbon dioxide from the defendants’ plants,” the Court saw “no room for a parallel track” under federal common law. The Court left open the question whether “the law of each State where the defendants operate power plants” could be applied. (pg.6)

Petitioners in this case are 15 energy companies that extract, produce, distribute, or sell fossil fuels around the world. The plaintiff respondents are the City and County of Honolulu and the Honolulu Board of Water Supply. On March 9, 2020, the City and County of Honolulu filed a complaint against petitioners in Hawaii state court, alleging that petitioners have contributed to global climate change, which in turn has caused a variety of harms in Honolulu. The Honolulu Board of Water Supply later joined the case as a plaintiff.

Respondents allege that increased greenhouse-gas emissions around the globe have contributed to a wide range of climate-change-related effects.  In particular, respondents cite:

♦  “sea level rise and attendant flooding, erosion, and beach loss”;
♦ “increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events”;
♦ “ocean warming and acidification that will injure or kill coral reefs”;
♦ “habitat loss of endemic species”;
♦ “diminished availability of freshwater resources”; and
♦ “cascading social, economic, and other consequences.”

Respondents allege that those effects have resulted in:

♦  property damage;
♦  “increased planning and preparation costs for community adaptation and resiliency”; and
♦  “decreased tax revenue” because of declines in tourism.

Respondents contend that “pollution from [petitioners’] fossil fuel products plays a direct and substantial role in the unprecedented rise in emissions of greenhouse gas pollution,” which is the “main driver” of global climate change. (pg. 9)

At the same time, respondents concede that “it is not possible to determine the source of any particular individual molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere attributable to anthropogenic sources because such greenhouse gas molecules do not bear markers that permit tracing them to their source, and because greenhouse gasses quickly diffuse and comingle in the atmosphere.”

Respondents assert state-law claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability, failure to warn, negligent failure to warn, and trespass. Each claim is premised on the same basic theory of liability: namely,

♦ that petitioners knew that their fossil-fuel products would cause an increase in greenhouse-gas emissions,
♦ yet failed to warn of that risk and instead,
♦ engaged in advertising and other speech to persuade governments and consumers not to take steps designed to reduce or regulate fossil fuel consumption,
♦ thereby causing increased emissions and climate change. (pg.10)

The Hawaii Supreme Court rejected petitioners’ argument that a sufficient connection between the claims and the forum did not exist because the use of petitioners’ products in Hawaii could not have injured respondents, as Hawaii accounts for only 0.06% of the world’s carbon-dioxide emissions per year. (pg.11)

Separately, the court concluded that, even if federal common law had not been displaced, it would not govern respondents’ claims. The court recognized that federal common law governs claims where “the source of the injury * * * is pollution traveling from one state to another,” but it asserted that the source of respondents’ alleged injury was petitioners’ “tortious marketing conduct,” not “pollution traveling from one state to another.” The court did not attempt to reconcile that characterization with its earlier recognition that respondents’ theory of liability depends upon petitioners’ conduct allegedly “dr[iving] consumption [of fossil fuels], and thus greenhouse gas pollution, and thus climate change,” resulting in alleged physical and economic effects in Honolulu. (pg.12-13)

In the Hawaii Supreme Court’s view, the inherently federal area of interstate pollution covers only claims where “the source of the injury * * * is pollution traveling from one state to another,” not “failure to warn and deceptive promotion.” But the complaint in City of New York likewise alleged that the defendants’ promotion and marketing of their products caused injury by increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The Second Circuit nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff was seeking relief “precisely because fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases” and thereby exacerbate climate change, and it thus declined to allow the plaintiff to “disavow[] any intent to address emissions” while “identifying such emissions” as the source of its harm. (pg.18)

Allowing the law of one State to govern disputes regarding pollution emanating from another State would violate the “cardinal” principle that “[e]ach [S]tate stands on the same level with all the rest,” by permitting one State to impose its law on other States and their citizens. Federal law must govern such controversies because they “touch[] basic interests of federalism” and implicate the “overriding federal interest in the need for a uniform rule of decision.” And because “borrowing the law of a particular State would be inappropriate” to resolve such interstate disputes, federal law must govern. (pg.23)

Respondents’ theory of liability is that petitioners’ fossil-fuel products are “hazardous” because they “cause or exacerbate global warming and related consequences,” and that petitioners acted wrongfully by promoting those products and allegedly taking actions to “conceal[] the[ir] hazards” and prevent “the[ir] regulation.” Respondents are seeking relief in the form of damages and equitable remedies for physical harms allegedly caused by global climate change, including “sea level rise, drought, extreme precipitation events, extreme heat events, and ocean acidification.” The “gravamen” of respondents’ complaint, is thus that petitioners’ conduct increased the world wide use of fossil fuels, resulting in increased global greenhouse-gas emissions, which contributed to global climate change and resulted in localized physical effects in Hawaii. (pg.24-25)

Respondents allege that their injuries are caused by the interstate and international emissions of greenhouse gases over many decades. Respondents’ requested relief—including damages—is designed not only to remedy injuries allegedly caused by those emissions but to regulate worldwide activities producing those emissions. Respondents are simply attempting to recover by moving up one step in the causal chain and suing the fuel producers rather than the emitters themselves (which include the vast majority of the world’s population). (pg.25)

Although the Clean Air Act has two saving clauses, they are materially identical to the Clean Water Act’s saving clauses and thus permit actions under state law only to the extent that the plaintiff is proceeding under the law of the State in which the source of the pollution is located. Of course, that is impossible here, where the alleged mechanism of respondents’ injuries is the combined effect of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Federal law thus precludes respondents’ state-law claims. Indeed, in light of the breadth of the Clean Air Act’s governance of greenhouse gas emissions, respondents’ state-law claims would be foreclosed even if a presumption against preemption
applied. (pg.26)

Climate activists protesting outside the Supreme Court July 1, 2022 after the court announced its decision in West Virginia v. EPA. Francis Chung/E&E News/POLITICO

Because respondents seek relief for climate-change related harms, international emissions—which represent the overwhelming majority of total anthropogenic emissions—are the primary causal mechanism underlying their alleged injuries. “Greenhouse gases once emitted become well mixed in the atmosphere; emissions in New Jersey may contribute no more to flooding in New York than emissions in China.” (pg.27)

The complaint is candid on this point: respondents repeatedly allege that defendants’ conduct led to increased greenhouse-gas emissions worldwide, which caused or exacerbated global climate change and thereby caused localized harms in Hawaii. Respondents nowhere alleged harm from petitioners’ alleged deceptive conduct other than through the mechanisms of increased emissions and global climate change. When faced with the same argument, the Second Circuit rightly held that a plaintiff cannot “have it both ways” by “disavowing any intent to address emissions” when convenient while simultaneously “identifying such emissions as the singular source of the [alleged] harm.” (pg.30)

The approach adopted by the Hawaii Supreme Court not only contravenes this Court’s precedents but would also permit suits alleging injuries pertaining to global climate change to proceed under the laws of all 50 States—a blueprint for chaos. As the federal government explained in its brief in American Electric Power, “virtually every person, organization, company, or government across the globe * * * emits greenhouse gases, and virtually everyone will also sustain climate-change-related injuries,” giving rise to claims from “almost unimaginably broad categories of both potential plaintiffs and potential defendants.” Out-of-state actors (including the nonresident energy companies here) would quickly find themselves subject to a “variety” of “vague” and “indeterminate” state-law standards, and States would be empowered to “do indirectly what they could not do directly—regulate the conduct of out-of-state sources.” That could lead to “widely divergent results”—and potentially massive liability—if a patchwork of 50 different legal regimes applied. And that is especially true to the extent that a state court attempts to exercise jurisdiction expansively over any energy company that does business in the State.

Background Resource

Finally, a Legal Rebuttal on the Merits of Kids’ Climate Lawsuit

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

When Ideologues Govern Instead of Achievers

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Joe Oliver describes how ideologues in power are breaking our society in his Financial Post article Irrational ‘progressive’ policies are driving dystopian results.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

From street names to gender, criminology and climate, our institutions
are in thrall to crazy wokeness. We need to get our culture back.

Society is in the grip of irrational ideas that defy common sense and drive dystopian policies. Some inane beliefs and trends are made up out of whole cloth; others derive from ideas that have resurfaced, Zombie-like, from the crypt of historic failures. They are advanced by “progressive” activists in thrall to a post-modern woke-ism steeped in Marxist-Leninism. What makes the phenomenon so threatening is its pervasive influence in politics, academia, media, not-for-profits and big business.

Two Finnish surveys published in March found that being woke was linked to anxiety, depression and a lack of happiness. We can only speculate why their ideas make them unhappier than the people they impose them on. Or are depressed people simply prone to socially damaging notions?
A decade or two ago people would have rejected these bizarre ideas for the nonsense they are, and their proponents as emperors with no clothes. But today they are conventional wisdom and skeptics are know-nothing deviants who must be de-platformed and punished for their heresy.A centrepiece of postmodern ideology is DEI which, by dividing us all into oppressor or oppressed, is neither diverse, nor equitable nor inclusive but conformist, unfair and exclusionary. It undermines excellence, productivity and competitiveness and is largely responsible for the assault on truth and inquiry at schools and universities, which have become left-wing breeding grounds for Gen Z.As for climate catastrophism, there are innumerable examples of the zany policies it has led to. Toronto’s fiscal situation is so dire it has just increased property taxes by 9.5 per cent. Yet its TransformTO 2022 Annual Report says that reaching net-zero goals by 2050 will require a $145-billion investment — though Toronto’s GHG emissions amount to 0.114 per cent of the global total. The U.S. government says that since 1850 the Earth’s temperature has risen 0.06C degrees per decade. That means Toronto contributes less than 0.00001 of a degree annually to global warming.

This is the same Toronto that is re-naming Dundas Street, which honoured
a British abolitionist, after an African tribe prominent in the slave trade.
Virtue-signalling trumping common sense is clearly rampant.

The cost for Canada to reach net zero by 2050 will be at least $2 trillion — about $180,000 for a family of four. The prime minister’s claim we must act now to avoid extreme weather is simply misinformation. Canada’s contribution to the annual increase in the globe’s temperature is less than a thousandth of a degree. And the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change tells us that in fact extreme weather events have not increased in severity or frequency. Despite incessant warnings from governments and media about a climate crisis, most people are unwilling to pay much to alleviate it. The climate consensus currently unravelling in Europe never caught on in the developing world.

An overarching concern for many Canadians is that their income has not kept up with inflation, yet the feds double down on profligate spending and ignore stalled productivity growth. They are also exacerbating a severe housing crisis by promoting the largest immigration levels since 1957 and one of the highest immigration rates in the world.

But the grand prize for cognitive dissonance goes to “Gays for Palestine,” who would be at high risk of arrest or defenestration in Gaza or the West Bank, though not in Tel Aviv, one of the world’s best places to celebrate pride. It is tragically ironic that students obsessed about micro-aggressions protest on behalf of a terrorist organization that advocates genocide. The double standard Israel faces has many rationalizations, but antisemitism has been a constant for millennia. Canada’s recent parliamentary vote calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza rewarded Hamas for its murderous rampage, which broke what was already a ceasefire.

On the criminal justice front, moving serial killer Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison outraged most Canadians, but is hardly an anomaly: fewer than 14 per cent of “dangerous offenders” are confined in maximum security prisons.  More generally, catch-and-release and lenient parole defy logic, put the public at risk and fuel the growing problem of urban crime.

Males who identify as women and use women’s washrooms and compete against women in sports are hailed as avatars of progress while anyone who points out that this could put women at risk or female athletes at a disadvantage can have their career destroyed. Get ready for complaints brought under the deeply flawed “Online Harms Bill,” C-63, which could impose sentences of up to life imprisonment for speech crimes.

Irrational, illiberal ideas are now entrenched in our most important institutions and the public is becoming habituated to them. It will require a determined effort to take the culture back and root out dysfunctional policies that undermine the economy, personal agency and our core rights and freedoms. But do we have any choice?

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

Helter Skelter Climate Policies

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Ross McKitrick explains the dangers of making climate policies willy-nilly in his Financial Post article Economists’ letter misses the point about the carbon tax revolt.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Yes, the carbon tax works great in a ‘first-best’ world where it’s the
only carbon policy. In the real world, carbon policies are piled high.

An open letter is circulating online among my economist colleagues aiming to promote sound thinking on carbon taxes. It makes some valid points and will probably get waved around in the House of Commons before long. But it’s conspicuously selective in its focus, to the point of ignoring the main problems with Canadian climate policy as a whole.

 

EV charging sign Electric-vehicle mandates and subsidies are among the mountain of climate policies that have been piled on top of Canada’s carbon tax. PHOTO BY JOSHUA A. BICKEL/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

There’s a massive pile of boulders blocking the road to efficient policy, including:

    • clean fuel regulations,
    • the oil-and-gas-sector emissions cap,
    • the electricity sector coal phase-out,
    • strict energy efficiency rules for new and existing buildings,
    • new performance mandates for natural gas-fired generation plants,
    • the regulatory blockade against liquified natural gas export facilities,
    • new motor vehicle fuel economy standards,
    • caps on fertilizer use on farms,
    • provincial ethanol production subsidies,
    • electric vehicle mandates and subsidies,
    • provincial renewable electricity mandates,
    • grid-scale battery storage experiments,
    • the Green Infrastructure Fund,
    • carbon capture and underground storage mandates, 
    • subsidies for electric buses and emergency vehicles in Canadian cities,
    • new aviation and rail sector emission limits,
      and many more.

Not one of these occasioned a letter of protest from Canadian economists.

Beside that mountain of boulders there’s a twig labelled “overstated objections to carbon pricing.” At the sight of it, hundreds of economists have rushed forward to sweep it off the road. What a help!

To my well-meaning colleagues I say: the pile of regulatory boulders
long ago made the economic case for carbon pricing irrelevant.

Layering a carbon tax on top of current and planned command-and-control regulations does not yield an efficient outcome, it just raises the overall cost to consumers. Which is why I can’t get excited about and certainly won’t sign the carbon-pricing letter. That’s not where the heavy lifting is needed.

My colleagues object to exaggerated claims about the cost of carbon taxes. Fair enough. But far worse are exaggerated claims about both the benefits of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the economic opportunities associated with the so-called “energy transition.” Exaggeration about the benefits of emission reduction is traceable to poor-quality academic research, such as continued use of climate models known to have large, persistent warming biases and of the RCP8.5 emissions scenario, long since shown in the academic literature to be grossly exaggerated.

But a lot of it is simply groundless rhetoric. Climate activists, politicians and journalists have spent years blaming Canadians’ fossil fuel use for every bad weather event that comes along and shutting down rational debate with polemical cudgels such as “climate emergency” declarations. Again, none of this occasioned a cautionary letter from economists.

There’s another big issue on which the letter was silent. Suppose we did clear all the regulatory boulders along with the carbon-pricing-costs-too-much twig. How high should the carbon tax be? A few of the letter’s signatories are former students of mine so I expect they remember the formula for an optimal emissions tax in the presence of an existing tax system. If not, they can take their copy of Economic Analysis of Environmental Policy by Prof. McKitrick off the shelf, blow off the thick layer of dust and look it up. Or they can consult any of the half-dozen or so journal articles published since the 1970s that derive it. But I suspect most of the other signatories have never seen the formula and don’t even know it exists.

To be technical for a moment, the optimal carbon tax rate varies inversely with the marginal cost of the overall tax system. The higher the tax burden — and with our heavy reliance on income taxes our burden is high — the costlier it is at the margin to provide any public good, including emissions reductions. Economists call this a “second-best problem”: inefficiencies in one place, like the tax system, cause inefficiencies in other policy areas, yielding in this case a higher optimal level of emissions and a lower optimal carbon tax rate.

Based on reasonable estimates of the social cost of carbon and the marginal costs of our tax system, our carbon price is already high enough. In fact, it may well be too high. I say this as one of the only Canadian economists who has published on all aspects of the question. Believing in mainstream climate science and economics, as I do, does not oblige you to dismiss public complaints that the carbon tax is too costly.

Which raises my final point: the age of mass academic letter-writing has long since passed. Academia has become too politically one-sided. Universities don’t get to spend years filling their ranks with staff drawn from one side of the political spectrum and then expect to be viewed as neutral arbiters of public policy issues. The more signatories there are on a letter like this, the less impact it will have. People nowadays will make up their own minds, thank you very much, and a well-argued essay by an individual willing to stand alone may even carry more weight.

Online conversations today are about rising living costs, stagnant real wages and deindustrialization. Even if carbon pricing isn’t the main cause of all this, climate policy is playing a growing role and people can be excused for lumping it all together. The public would welcome insight from economists about how to deal with these challenges. A mass letter enthusing about carbon taxes doesn’t provide it.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

2023 Climate Report: Earth’s Climate Is Fine

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Preface

This report is written for people wishing to form their own opinion on issues relating to climate. Its focus is on publicly available observational datasets, and not on the output of numerical models, although there are a few exceptions, such as Figure 42. References and data sources are listed at the end.

The observational data presented here reveal a vast number of natural variations, some of which appear in more than one series. The existence of such natural climatic variations is not always fully acknowledged, and therefore generally not considered in contemporary climate conversations. The drivers of most of these climatic variations are not yet fully understood, but should represent an important focus for climatic research in future.

In this report, meteorological and climatic observations are described according to the following overall structure: atmosphere, oceans, sea level, sea ice, snow cover, precipitation, and storms. Finally, in the last section (below), the observational evidence as at 2023 is briefly summarised.

Ten facts about the year 2023

1. Air temperatures in 2023 were the highest on record (since 1850/1880/1979, according to the particular data series). Recent warming is not symmetrical, but is mainly seen in the Northern Hemisphere (Figures 1 and 13).

Figure 1: 2023 surface air temperatures compared to the average for the previous 10 years. Green-yellow-red colours indicate areas with higher temperature than the average, while blue colours indicate lower than average temperatures. Data source: Remote Sensed Surface Temperature Anomaly, AIRS/Aqua L3 Monthly Standard Physical Retrieval 1-degree x 1-degree V006 (https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/), obtained from the GISS data portal (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/).

 Figure 13: Zonal air temperatures. Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the tropics and the northern and southern extratropics, according to University of Alabama at Huntsville, USA. Thin lines: monthly value; thick lines: 3-year running mean.

2. Arctic air temperatures have increased during the satellite era (since 1979), but Antarctic temperatures remain essentially stable (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Polar temperatures Global monthly average lower troposphere temperature since 1979 for the North and South Pole regions, according to University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), USA. Thick lines are the simple running 37-month average.

3. Since 2004, globally, the upper 1900m of the oceans has seen net warming of about 0.037°C. The greatest warming (of about 0.2°C) is in the uppermost 100m, and mainly in regions near the Equator, where the greatest amount of solar radiation is received (Figure 28).

Figure 28: Temperature changes 0–1900m Global ocean net temperature change since 2004 from surface to 1900m depth, using Argo-data. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas.

4. Since 2004, the northern oceans (55–65°N) have, on average, experienced a marked cooling down to 1400m depth, and slight warming below that (Figure 29). Over the same period, the southern oceans (55–65°S) have, on average, seen some warming at most depths (above 1900m), but mainly near the surface.

Figure 29: Temperature changes 0–1900m Global ocean net temperature change since 2004 from surface to 1900m depth. Source: Global Marine Argo Atlas

5. Sea level globally is increasing at about 3.4 mm per year or more according to satellites, but only at 1-2 mm per year according to coastal tide gauges (Figures 39 and 41). Local and regional sea-level changes usually deviate significantly from such global averages.

Figure 39: Global sea level change since December 1992 The two lower panels show the annual sea level change, calculated for 1- and 10-year time windows, respectively. These values are plotted at the end of the interval considered. Source: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder. The blue dots are the individual observations (with calculated GIA e”ect removed), and the purple line represents the running 121-month (ca. 10-year) average.

Figure 41: Holgate-9 monthly tide gauge data from PSMSL Data Explorer The Holgate-9 are a series of tide gauges located in geologically stable sites. The two lower panels show the annual sea level change, calculated for 1- and 10-year time windows, respectively. These values are plotted at the end of the interval considered. Source: Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at University of Colorado at Boulder. The blue dots are the individual observations, and the purple line represents the running 121-month (ca. 10-year) average.

6. Global sea-ice extent remains well below the average for the satellite era (since 1979). Since 2018, however, it has remained quasistable, perhaps even exhibiting a small increase (Figure 43).

Figure 43: Global and hemispheric sea ice extent since 1979 12-month running means. The October 1979 value represents the monthly average of November 1978–October 1979, the November 1979 value represents the average of December 1978–November 1979, etc. The stippled lines represent a 61-month (ca. 5 years) average. The last month included in the 12-month calculations is shown to the right in the diagram. Data source: National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

7. Global snow cover has remained essentially stable throughout the satellite era (Figure 47), although with important regional and seasonal variations.

Figure 47: Northern hemisphere weekly snow cover since 2000 (a) Since January 2000 and (b) Since 1972. Source: Rutgers University Global Snow Laboratory. The thin blue line is the weekly data, and the thick blue line is the running 53-week average (approximately 1 year). The horizontal red line is the 1972–2022 average.

8. Global precipitation varies from more than 3000mm per year in humid regions to almost nothing in deserts. Global average precipitation exhibits variations from one year to the next, and from decade to decade, but since 1901 there has been no clear overall trend (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Global precipitation anomalies. Variation of annual anomalies in relation to the global average precipitation from 1901 to 2021 based on rainfall and snowfall measurements from land-based weather stations worldwide. Data source: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

9. Storms and hurricanes display variable frequency over time, but without any clear global trend towards higher or lower values (Figure 51).

Figure 51: Annual global accumulated cyclone energy Source: Ryan Maue.

 

10. Observations confirm the continuing long-term variability of average meteorological and oceanographic conditions, but do not support the notion of an ongoing climate crisis.

Summing up

The global climate system is multifaceted, involving sun, planets, atmosphere, oceans, land, geological processes, biological life, and complex interactions between them. Many components and their mutual coupling are still not fully understood or perhaps not even recognised.

Believing that one minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2) controls nearly all aspects of climate is naïve and entirely unrealistic.

The global climate has remained in a quasi-stable condition within certain limits for millions of years, although with important variations playing out over periods ranging from years to centuries or more, but the global climate has never been in a fully stable state without change.

Modern observations show that this behaviour continues today;
there is no evidence of a global climate crisis.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

How the Carbon Cult Subverts Political Discourse

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Trudeau Turns the Carbon Tax Screws on Canadians April 1

Ross Mckitrick explains the smoke and mirrors in Trudeau’s justifications for his racheting carbon tax in a National Post article Wanted: A leader who is honest about climate policy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Pierre Poilievre is leading anti-carbon tax rallies around the country, ginning up support for an old-fashioned tax revolt. In response, Justin Trudeau went to Calgary and trumpeted — believe it or not! — his love of free markets. After explaining the economic logic of using a carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gases, the prime minister slammed regulatory approaches, which, he said, “all involve the heavy hand of government. I prefer a cleaner solution, a market-based solution and that is, if you’re behaving in a way that causes pollution, you should pay.” He added that the Conservatives would instead rely on the “heavy hand of government through regulation and subsidies to pick winners and losers in the economy as opposed to trusting the market.”  Amen to all that!

But someone should tell Trudeau that his own government’s
Emission Reduction Plan mainly consists of heavy-handed
regulations, subsidies, mandates and winner-picking grants.

Within its 240 pages one does find a carbon tax. But also 139 additional policies, including:

♦  Clean Fuels Regulations,
♦  An electric vehicle mandate that will ban gasoline cars by 2035,
♦  Aggressive fuel economy standards that will hike such cars’ cost in the meantime,
♦  Costly new emission targets specifically for oil & gas, agriculture, heavy industry and waste management,
♦  Onerous new energy efficiency requirements both for new buildings and renovations of existing buildings, New electricity grid requirements, and page upon page of
♦  Subsidy funds for “clean technology” firms and other would-be winners in the sunlit uplands of the new green economy.

Does Trudeau oppose any of that? Hardly. But the economic logic of a carbon tax only applies when it is used on its own. He doesn’t get to boast about the elegance of market mechanisms on behalf of a policy package that starts with a price signal then destroys it with a massive regulatory apparatus. Trudeau also tried to warm his Alberta audience to the carbon tax by invoking the menace of mild weather and forest fires. In fairness it was an unusual February in Calgary. The month began with a week of above-zero temperatures, hitting five degrees Celsius at one point, then there was a brief cold snap before Valentine’s Day, then the daytime highs soared to the low teens for nine days and the month ended with soupy above-zero conditions. Weird.

Oops, that was 1981. This year was weirder: February highs were above zero for 25 out of 28 days, eight of which were even above 10 degrees C.

Oops again, that was 1991. Granted, February 2024 also had
its mild patches, but not like the old days.

Of course, back then warm weather was just weather. Now it’s a climate emergency and Canadians demand action. Except they don’t want to pay for it, which is the main problem for politicians when trying to come up with a climate policy that’s both effective and affordable. In fact, you can only have one of those two. Take your pick: effective or affordable, affordable or effective.

In practice, of course we typically end up zero for two,
with policies that are both ineffective and unaffordable.

You can claim your policy will yield deep decarbonization while boosting the economy, which almost all politicians in every western country have spent decades doing. But it’s not true. With current technology, affordable policies yield only small temporary emission reductions. Population and economic growth swamp their effects over time, which is why mainstream economists have long argued that while we can eliminate some lowvalue emissions, for the most part we will just have to live with climate change. Trying to stop it would cost far more than it’s worth.

Meanwhile the policy pantomime continues. Poilievre’s anti-carbon tax rallies are popular, but what happens after we axe the tax? If he plans to replace it with regulatory measures aimed at achieving the same emission cuts, he really should tell his rallygoers that what he has in mind will hit them even harder than the tax they’re so keen to scrap.

Or does he have the courage to do the sensible thing
and follow the mainstream economics advice?

If he wants to be honest with Canadians, he must explain that the affordable options will not get us to the Paris target, let alone to net-zero, and even if they did, what Canada does will have no effect on the global climate because we’re such small players. Maybe new technologies will appear over the next decade that change the economics, but until that day we’re better off fixing our growth problems, getting the cost of living down and continuing to be resilient to all the weather variations Canadians have always faced.

Addendum

Notice that Trudeau asserts that his carbon tax is needed so that “polluters pay.”  Millions of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars have been spent on prime time TV ads reminding viewers that we have to do something to stop “carbon pollution”, by which they mean CO2 emissions.  No matter that CO2, far from being an unnatural contaminant, is plant food without which (less than 150 ppm) plants and animals die.  No mention of thousands of scientists proclaiming that “There is No Climate Emergency,” and that global warming and rising CO2 since the Little Ice Age have led to unprecedented human flourishing.

So essential CO2 is labeled as a pollutant in order to insist that emissions from burning hydrocarbons must be reduced to avert a crisis: heat waves, forest fires, floods, droughts, etc. etc.  The premise is “We have to do something to stop emitting CO2.”  Politicians of all stripes dare not question it.  And a video interview below demonstrates how that premise prevents any reasonable discussion of energy policy.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report looking into how much the carbon tax is actually costing Canadian households. In the CBC interview, Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux breaks down the report. And, Dale Beugin, executive vice-president of the Canadian Climate Institute discusses the analysis his organization has conducted on the government’s emissions reduction plan. Note the PBO role is non-partisan, while the CCI agenda is open and obviously Gung Ho against CO2.

The discussion with the PBO ends at 11 minutes into the video, the remainder being CCI talking about ways to shape industrial policies to force additional emissions down to meet Paris targets.  A few excerpts from the first part show how difficult it is to escape the premise that we have to do something about CO2.

CBC:  I’m sure have been watching what’s been happening in the House of Commons the conclusions in your report they’re being cited by the conservatives in particular as proof that Canadians are worse off because of carbon pricing and that means this policy needs to go. Is that a fair representation of your findings?

PBO: Well it’s a representation of our findings once you also include the economic impacts of introducing a carbon tax. So there’s the fiscal impact on households paying the tax versus the amount of the rebate that households are receiving. But once you also include the economic impacts due to the introduction of a carbon tax, for example the reduction in activity or the slower growth in economic activity in some sectors then that’s the full impact.

CBC:  The fiscal analysis is the financial analysis that the government points to. They say most families will still get  more in rebates than they pay, sort  of Straight Cash Out, Straight Cash in.  Is that a fair representation?

PBO: The conclusion we arrived at if you take into consideration the carbon tax that households pay on their fossil fuels that they’re buying: gasoline, natural gas, diesel and so on, they pay that directly as well as the embedded energy component of whatever goods and services they buy and they subtract from that the the rebate then about 80% of households are better off.

CBC: It gets complicated and this is where it gets controversial because you took a look at the broader effect that carbon pricing, any kind of tax has on an economy, it can have an economic impact to the negative and this is the line from report that conservatives point to once you factor in the rebate but also the economic impacts the majority of the households will see a negative impact as a result of the carbon tax. The rebuttal to that conclusion is that it doesn’t tell the whole story it doesn’t look at other options and other impacts. What do you say in terms of people understanding the meaning of that analysis?

PBO: The analysis looks at the world where the we have a carbon tax versus the absence of a carbon tax which is how we do economic analysis. So the impact of a carbon tax on the economy will have impacts on some sectors; the transportation sector to take one example, or the oil and gas sector, lower employment than would otherwise be the case or lower profits than would otherwise be the case. So that translates into economic impacts on average for households: lower employment, lower profits, lower dividends for those who own stocks Etc. so these are the economic impacts.

CBC: This is where the analysis has caused some confusion and drawn some criticism because the analysis only compares the impact as you said of a carbon price versus nothing, and nothing isn’t an option right? It doesn’t compare carbon pricing versus other options that other experts would say could be even more expensive. So how should people assess the political arguments we’re seeing without a clear comparative analysis of the options?

PBO: So my mandate is to provide cost estimates of policy proposals by the government or policy measures that the government has introduced. My mandate does not include providing cost estimates of alternative scenarios or multiple options. So you’re right that doing something else to reach International targets or a Canada’s commitment under the Paris Accord would also have costs. For example if we were to introduce massive subsidies for new technologies to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, that would obviously have costs. Introducing regulations also has costs and these costs could could be measured if we knew exactly what these alternatives are but there’s no clear policy proposal from the government as what would be the alternative to a carbon tax. So it’s difficult to cost something that has not been proposed yet.

It’s true that the consensus among economists is generally speaking a carbon tax is probably the least disruptive way to reduce emissions. That being said we see that the government itself is not relying solely on a carbon tax for various reasons. So the government itself is introducing subsidies for clean fuel and many regulations.

CBC: So you can’t assess this compared to another proposal because there is no other proposal to assess.  You also don’t factor in the cost of climate change. We’ve seen massive wildfires still burning from last year throughout the winter In British Columbia and in Alberta; you know the extreme weather on the East Coast, flooding and storms, all of that has a massive economic impact as well and a loss of productivity and cost to governments.

The idea is to stop that from getting worse or more frequent,
how do we assess that versus the cost
of using carbon pricing to lower emissions.

PBO: That’s a very difficult field to to venture into because the number of unusual weather events that’s occurring. We don’t know which ones are due to climate change and which ones would have occurred anyways, or whether their extent would have been smaller or even worse, probably  smaller especially in a short period of time. We’ve tried to estimate the impact of climate change between now and the year 2100 and we find that there is a cost to climate change but for the next few years between now and 2030 it’s very difficult to determine precisely the cost of climate change.  It’s an area that we ventured into but it’s not easy and not that many institutions and organizations have established clear parameters under which to estimate the cost of climate change.

It’s very unlikely that there’ll be significant technological breakthroughs between now and
2030 sufficient to even partially offset the cost of a carbon tax for example, or any measures to mitigate or reduce our carbon emissions. But it’s quite possible that Beyond 2030 once technologies become more mature they’ll be able to offset some of the costs that we’ll we’ll have to incur to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. So that’s why it’s difficult to say whether the costs will be offset by the benefits over the longer term but between now and 2030 it’s clearly not going to happen.

I’m providing unbiased nonpartisan information, information not pronouncements, not verdicts on policies. It’s up to decision makers and Canadians to make up their own minds based on the information we provide them so they can decide whether a carbon tax or other measures are the best way forward to reduce carbon emissions. We’re not passing judgments as to whether a policy is working or not.

My Observations

This interview shows that the carbon cult narrative
subverts rational policymaking in three significant ways.

Firstly, there is no accounting of all the economic and social damage done by the multitude of federal government climate policies and regulations (139 that McKitrick found in the Emission Reduction Plan). Secondly the benefits to offset the carbon tax costs consider only saving some damages from extreme weather. This is problematic in two ways. There is no certainty that imposing these costs on Canadians will have any effect on CO2 levels, or  that climate and weather will be any different for having made the effort.

Add to that the ignoring of actual benefits to humankind and to the biosphere from rising atmospheric CO2 and warming temperatures. Virtually every year global agricultural production sets records because of warming and CO2 enhancing photosynthesis. That puts food on the table for billions of people. What insanity to pursue things like carbon capture to rob the biosphere of CO2, while dreaming of a cooler future planet. Both objectives would threaten the world food supply and can hardly be benefits to justify emissions reductions.

Finally CCI gives the game away when they say, in effect:
“You don’t like the carbon tax, but doing nothing is not an option.”

In fact doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions is the best option, though politicians are loath to admit it. Few nations are achieving their Paris Treaty targets, and their emissions dwarf Canada’s.

The prosperity that comes from hydrocarbons can serve to build and maintain robust infrastructure and means of production for humanity to adapt to any changes in the climate, such as those in the past likely to happen again beyond our ability to stop them.

There is no charge for content on this site, nor for subscribers to receive email notifications of postings.

CO2 Coalition Does Climate Reveal in Wyoming

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The CO2 Coalition article is CO2 Coalition Takes the Science to Wyoming.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Wyoming has vast resources of coal, oil and natural gas. With 40% of the nation’s coal resources, the state has been the United States’ top producer since 1986, primarily from the Powder River Basin located in the northeastern part of the state. It is also a national leader in the production of oil and natural gas, ranking in the top 10 in production of both products. 

Yet, even though the Wyoming economy is heavily dependent on the mining and extraction of fossil fuels, its governor, Mark Gordon, has adopted a strong “decarbonization” policy. The science tells us that this is not a winning strategy for the people of Wyoming. 

The CO2 Coalition believes that public policy on such matters should be driven by scientific review and analysis, not political agendas. To provide such an analysis, we have produced this report, Wyoming and Climate Change: CO2 Should Be Celebrated, Not Captured. 

We also sent a team of climate experts from the CO2 Coalition,  including Dr. William Happer, Dr. Byron Soepyan and Gregory Wrightstone to Wyoming to provide the facts concerning the huge benefits of carbon dioxide. This team presented the science at a hearing of the Wyoming Senate Agriculture Committee (pictured above.)

The team also presented accurate science regarding Wyoming’s climate to students at Gillette College, Laramie County Community College, and at the University of Wyoming.

Temperature Data Shows Good News for Wyoming

Data for Wyoming contradict the 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4) assertion that “the frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase.”

Our data analysis shows that high daily temperatures peaked during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s and have been in a 90-year decline. This is confirmed by reviewing the percentage of days that were reported to be hotter than 100°F (37.8°C) by Wyoming temperature stations. There is no discernible increase, and the largest numbers occurred in the first half of the 20th century when CO2 levels were 70% of recent measurements.

There has been, however, a beneficial increase in the minimum nighttime temperatures, which has led to a lengthening of the Wyoming growing season. Since the late 1800s, these nighttime temperatures have increased about 2°F (1.1°C).

The slight increase of about 1.2°F (0.7°C) in the average temperature
in the last 120 years is being driven by reductions in extreme cold
rather than increases in extreme heat.

Full Report:  Wyoming and Climate Change

Conclusion From Full Report 

The recent proposal by Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon to use “carbon capture” to achieve what he terms “negative net zero” (Gordon 2021) is based on a flawed theory that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is leading to harmful effects on Wyoming’s environment and its people. Within this report, we have documented that modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide are clearly beneficial for the Cowboy State’s ecosystems and citizenry.

The data tell us the following:

• Current levels of carbon dioxide are at near historically low concentrations.
• Adjustments to historic temperature records have artificially amplified modern warming.
• Wyoming temperatures have increased a modest 1.2°F (0.7°C) since 1895.
• Heat waves peaked in the 1930s and have been in slight decline since that period.
• Nightime low temperatures have increased, lengthening growing seasons.
• Precipitation data, while varying greatly from year-to-year, show no increasing or decreasing trend.
• Droughts are not increasing in Wyoming.
• Severe weather and natural disasters are declining.
• Agricultural production, globally and in Wyoming, is thriving due to modest warming and more CO2.
• Vegetation in Wyoming and around the world is increasing.
• Greenhouse-induced warming that would be averted (< 0.003°F) by eliminating Wyoming’s CO2 emissions would be too small to measure and achieved, if at all, at enormous cost.
• Models used to project future temperatures significantly overpredict the amount of warming in coming decades.

CO2 Should Be Celebrated, Not Captured

A Pivotal Year for Canada?

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Joe Oliver provides an outlook in his Financial Post article 2024 could be a pivotal year, politically, economically and culturally.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

There are signs that cancel culture is in decline and it’s possible
to say things again that everyone knows to be true.

The year just beginning could be a watershed, with turning points in politics, economics and culture, provided common sense and moral clarity prevail both here and abroad.

Two regional wars in Ukraine and Gaza could spread and provoke a direct confrontation between western democracies and Russia, Iran and China. Equivocation or faltering support for embattled allies would weaken the democracies in their struggle with aggressive autocratic foes who harbour malign territorial and ideological/theocratic ambitions. If Vladimir Putin manages to keep Ukrainian land seized by force of arms, he will be less concerned about NATO’s reaction should he invade other countries the Soviet Union once subjugated. Unless Israel destroys Hamas, that group’s genocidal savagery will never end and peace in the Middle East will remain just a dream.

As the world became more dangerous and unstable in 2023,
Canada chose to undermine its own international standing.

To sit at the adult table requires a moral compass, which means opposing anti-Israel votes in the UN and designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, which we failed to do. It also means not being a military free-rider. Our decision to act instead as a “convener” and self- important virtue-signaller irritates allies who must shoulder our share of the burden and third-world countries who see our posturing as post-colonial arrogance.

The American elections in November could be transformative. Canada’s Liberals will face a rude awakening if a triple Republican victory brings to power politicians with whom they have little contact and even less influence. It’s to be hoped they are reaching out discreetly.

On the policy front, the World Economic Forum (WEF) continues to try to influence global governmental, industrial and social agendas. Its “Great Reset” envisages an intrusive public sector in thrall to climate catastrophism that would reduce personal agency through pervasive oversight mechanisms, including central bank digital currencies. Forum chairman Klaus Schwab assured elite Davos attendees that “The future belongs to us” — comforting words for those jealous of their influence and accustomed to ignoring rules that apply to the hoi polloi. Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney are on the WEF board of trustees and the Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party certainly reflects its centre-left technocratic view.

But European governments are moving away from costly climate initiatives
and support for EVs in response to public opposition. The U.S. will follow suit
if Donald Trump wins back the presidency.

Canadians resent seemingly endless woke policies that defy common sense but only occasionally demonstrate against them, usually saving their outrage for the ballot box. A recent example of ludicrous groupthink was the unanimous decision of Toronto City Council to change the name of Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square. It cancelled Henry Dundas, a committed British abolitionist, in favour of a Ghanaian name originating with the Akan people, who were themselves slave traders — all this in the name of “racial justice and equality.” In another instance of feel-good inanity, though one that may have harmful consequences, 34 Ontario municipal councils passed resolutions to phase out natural gas power, which is unachievable without electricity blackouts and crushing cost. Subsequently, Windsor city council acknowledged reality and approved plans for two new gas turbines to assure reliable electricity.

On the economic front, Canadians’ personal prosperity, as measured by GDP per capita, is projected to decline this year by more than two per cent. To address affordability and dismal long-term productivity, the federal government needs to shift focus from identity politics and climate obsession to economic growth, fiscal responsibility and raising Canadians’ standard of living. In addition to recommendations I outlined in my last column, we need to pursue academic excellence, colour-blind hiring based on competence and achievement — remember those quaint concepts? — and a return to shareholder capitalism away from stakeholder capitalism, which eats away at free enterprise, the source of our collective prosperity.

Although billions of people around the world would love to settle in the Great White North, progressive elites’ guilt about their own privileged lifestyle does not justify the massive influx of immigrants that is currently disadvantaging hardworking Canadians and exacerbating an already severe housing crisis.

Most Canadians understand that, and in 2023 it became possible
to make such arguments without being cancelled.

Whether antisemitic hate crimes and violence will spread even more in 2024 remains an open question. The late chief rabbi of the U.K., Jonathan Sacks drew on history to tell people that “The hate that begins with the Jews, never ends with the Jews.” This ancient social pathology has broad implications for Canadian society and needs to be dealt with, urgently and decisively, by every level of government. After an initially slow response, there seems to be growing recognition of that.

There were also glimmers of good news on the higher education front. The U.S. Supreme Court declared affirmative action in college admissions unconstitutional. And the resignation of Harvard president Claudine Gay exposed the intellectual rot in American universities. Now, a crucial battle against institutionally entrenched interests has started, aiming to abolish “diversity, equity and inclusion,” a divisive, essentially racist ideology that undermines excellence, integrity and productivity in academia and the workplace. That battle has not really begun yet in Canada.

If these and other issues become constructive turning points,
2024 could be a better year than its dark predecessor.

Claimed Warming Not a Fact on the Ground

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Jack Hellner writes at American Thinker Taking a look at my hometown data I discover the very opposite of the ‘global warming’ narrative is true.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The following are actual pieces of scientific data related to Springfield, Illinois, where I live:

The warmest day recorded in January is 73 degrees Fahrenheit on January 23, 1909, so every day in January, for the last 115 years, has been colder; the warmest day ever in February is February 24, 1930, when temperatures hit 78 degrees; the warmest day in March was March 21, 1907, when the temperature hit 91 degrees.

The average high temperature in Springfield today is around 36 degrees, and this weekend we are supposed to have highs around 30 degrees below normal, with wind chills around 20 below zero.

So, after 160 years of exponential growth of all the things the green pushers
say cause warming, we are thirty degrees below normal.

Temperatures have always fluctuated cyclically and naturally. Humans have no control over them, and there is no correlation between CO2 content, crude oil use, number of vehicles, and temperatures.

Yet, here is an article from two days ago, full of worthless information and repeated talking points, all to push the radical green agenda to scare people into capitulation:

Earth shattered global heat record in ’23 and it’s flirting with warming limit, European agency says

Earth last year shattered global annual heat records, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold and showed more signs of a feverish planet, the European climate agency said Tuesday.

The European climate agency Copernicus said the year was 1.48 degrees Celsius (2.66 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times. That’s barely below the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit that the world hoped to stay within in the 2015 Paris climate accord to avoid the most severe effects of warming.

People with common sense and the ability to critically think should have several questions and comments about this article. First, they should point out that it is impossible to get an average global temperature unless they place the weather stations by area throughout the globe.

For example: 70 percent of the earth is covered by water, so 70% of weather stations should be placed over water to get a statistically accurate global temperature. Placing a much higher percentage of weather stations in urban areas, with cement and buildings, obviously skews the statistical results. Basically it is garbage in, garbage out.

Then they should ask why they picked the beginning of the Industrial Revolution as the starting point from which to measure. The Industrial Revolution spanned the period 1760–1840, which was during the little ice age. So, if you pick a cold period to start from, you exaggerate the change to push the agenda.

Why didn’t they start with the medieval warming period,
where the temperature was like today? The reason they don’t
is that it wouldn’t scare people into capitulation.

Why don’t they recognize the cooling period from 1940-1975 as disproving their theory that our use of natural resources causes warming? Because facts haven’t mattered in a long time.

One sentence that I find humorous is where people got together and decided exactly what the earth’s maximum temperature should be: “Earth last year shattered global annual heat records, flirted with the world’s agreed-upon warming threshold….”

Did they have a multiple-choice question? We will be able to adapt. It is pure arrogance when politicians, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and others pretend they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity.

There are too many natural variables that we can’t control or predict. What people will never see in these articles that seek to scare people into capitulation is any actual scientific data that shows a direct link between our use of oil, coal, natural gas, methane, number of gas-powered vehicles, and temperature, or any other climate statistic because… there is none. But they don’t care.

The goal has always been to transfer money and freedom from the people
to the government and green pushers. They are greedy! It is a massive scam!

See also:

Temperature records from around the world do not support
the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

The Climate Story (Illustrated)

Resources for Climate History Where You Live

June 2023 the Hottest Ever? Not So Fast!