Tag: climategate

Now scientists say BREATHING is bad for the environment: Gases we exhale contribute to 0.1% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions

Whether it’s eating less meat or cycling instead of driving, humans can do many things to help prevent climate change.

Unfortunately, breathing less isn’t one of them. 

That might be a problem, as a new study claims the gases in air exhaled from human lungs is fueling global warming.

Methane and nitrous oxide in the air we exhale makes up to 0.1 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, scientists say. 

And that’s not even accounting for the gas we release from burps and farts, or emissions that come from our skin without us noticing. 

The new study was led by Dr Nicholas Cowan, an atmospheric physicist at the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Edinburgh. 

‘Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming,’ Dr Cowan and colleagues say. 

‘We would urge caution in the assumption that emissions from humans are negligible.’

As most of us remember from science classes at school, humans breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. 

Keep reading

The Crippling Economic Costs Of Green Energy Subsidies

The green energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) have been justified by the Biden Administration as a booster of U.S. economic growth and jobs.  But when the subsidies are tallied and the overall impacts evaluated, the IRA is a job and economic growth killer. 

Under the IRA, the lion’s share of subsidies will be paid to wind and solar developers.  The subsidies will not expire until electric industry carbon emissions fall by at least 75% below 2005 levels, after which they will gradually decrease.  Even the most optimistic forecasts prepared by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) show that this will not occur until at least 2046.  Thus, the subsidies for wind and solar will continue unabated for decades.  In total, the subsidies will far exceed what the U.S. government spent in today’s dollars to combat the Great Depression.

The single largest subsidy is the federal investment tax credit (ITC).  Most wind and solar projects will be able to claim a minimum 30% ITC, plus be eligible for an additional 10% credit if the projects rely on domestic manufacturing for components.  

The EIA’s optimistic forecast projects about 900,000 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaics, 350,000 MW of onshore wind turbines, and 24,000 MW of offshore wind by 2046.  If all of this generation is built, it will result in direct ITC subsidies totaling between $500 billion and $1 trillion, depending on construction costs.  The greater the costs, the larger the subsidies.  Although wind and solar proponents still claim costs are falling, the reality is the opposite.   Offshore wind developers, especially, are clamoring to renegotiate contracts they signed previously, including guaranteed price adjustments for increasing costs, and relaxing the domestic content requirement so they can claim the additional 10% ITC.

Despite spiraling deficits – almost $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ended this past October – green energy subsidies will be financed with still more government debt.  With the increase in interest rates to normal levels, financing costs will soar, adding an estimated $500 to $800 billion to the bill costs, almost as much as the subsidies themselves. 

The envisioned spending and subsidies for green energy, several hundred billion dollars annually just for wind and solar generation, will distort energy markets.  First, they will crowd out more productive private investment in the energy sector and reduce the resources available for more efficient forms of generation, especially small modular reactors.  Second, as the deficit increases further, higher interest rates will crowd out private investment in more productive private sectors of the economy.

Along with the Administration’s push to “electrify” the economy, such as higher vehicle mileage standards that act as a de facto mandate for electric vehicles and proposed bans on natural gas appliances, the result, as has been experienced in Europe, will be soaring electricity prices.  Those higher prices will reduce economic growth and employment, far more so than the green energy investments can boost it.  Although the subsidies will benefit wind and solar developers, but the overall economic impacts for the country will be crippling.

Keep reading

The Media Is Hyping Up ‘Carbon Passports’ To Restrict Travel

A talking point that is now everywhere in the media is the notion that in the near future travel is highly likely to be restricted through the introduction of so called ‘carbon passports’.

Last week, CNN ran a piece created by something called ‘The Conversation,’ which had the headline “It’s time to limit how often we can travel abroad – ‘carbon passports’ may be the answer”

Within this “analysis,” readers were told that record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and extreme weather events are being driven in part by people going on holiday.

“Tourism is part of the problem,” the piece asserts, adding “The tourism sector generates around one-tenth of the greenhouse gas emissions that are driving the climate crisis.”

It then goes on to suggest that the introduction of carbon passports which would see every “traveler being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed,” could “ration” travel.

“This concept may seem extreme,” the writer states before telling you that it isn’t and it’s a probably a good idea because of how on the verge of collapse the environment is.

“Boiling temperatures will probably diminish the allure of traditional beach destinations,” anyway, claims the author.

This isn’t just one alarmist story languishing somewhere in the dark depths of CNN’s website, it’s everywhere.

Keep reading

Climate Scientist Says It’s ‘Unreasonable’ To Call Climate Change An Existential Threat

An MIT scientist has said that although the global temperature rise owing to a greenhouse effect is real, the increase is small and does not pose any existential threat.

The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapor and clouds, said Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are minor constituents of the greenhouse effect, Mr. Lindzen told EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” in an interview.

“If all other things are kept constant, and you double CO2, you would get a little under one degree of warming,” Mr. Lindzen said. Some climate models estimate the highest warming at three degrees, but “even three degrees isn’t that much,” he added.

“We’re dealing with changes for a doubling of CO2 on the order of between breakfast and lunch,” he said.

According to NASA, the greenhouse effect is “the process through which heat is trapped near Earth’s surface by substances known as ‘greenhouse gases.’ Greenhouse gases consist of carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and water vapor.”

Politicians, universities, international organizations, and media have called climate warming an existential threat to humanity.

President Joe Biden said at a press conference in Vietnam in September that, “The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next … 10 years.”

The Climate Change Working Group at Western Michigan University has warned that the “global temperature has risen at least 1°C since mid-20th century” and said that “climate change is an existential threat to the quality of life on this planet.”

Bruce Aylward, assistant director General at the World Health Organization (WHO), said in November that climate change poses an existential threat to all people, in particular pregnant women and children.

Mr. Lindzen asserted that calling climate change an existential threat comes from propaganda.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—the United Nations body for assessing the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts, and options to mitigate—does not call it an existential threat, Mr. Lindzen said.

In its report, the IPCC talks about a reduction in GDP by 3 percent by 2100 owing to climate change, Mr. Lindzen added. “Assuming the GDP has increased several times by then, that doesn’t sound existential to most people.”

Keep reading

Biden Admin Pledges Billions to Address Climate Change, Promote ‘Gender Equity’ Overseas

The Biden administration said it is going to spend $3 billion to help less developed economies address the impact of climate change, including more than $400 million to advance “gender equity” in those countries.

The announcement comes as Vice President Kamala Harris, speaking on Saturday at the United Nations’ annual climate summit in Dubai, urged rich countries to “do more” to keep pace with an agenda of preventing the global temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

“The U.S. is committed to expanding international climate finance,” the vice president said. “I am proud to announce a new $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund to help developing countries access capital to invest in resilience, clean energy, and nature-based solutions.”

The Green Climate Fund was created by the United Nations in 2010 with a goal to finance developing countries’ transition away from burning fossil fuels and building infrastructure to adapt to climate change. About 65 percent of the Fund’s current $13.5 portfolio comes from the public sector.

In 2014, the administration of former President Barack Obama pledged to put $3 billion into the Fund. Citing the unfair economic burden imposed on American taxpayers by climate goals dictated by the Paris Climate Agreement, President Donald Trump in 2017 ceased the implementation of several Obama-era commitments and, as a result, withheld the remaining $2 billion of the $3 billion pledge.

Keep reading

Elites Meet: 70,000+ Attendees Flying to Dubai for COP 28 Climate Summit

Ladies and gentlemen, please return your seats and tray tables to an upright position, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for landing… That is the order more than 70,000 people will hear as they arrive mostly by private and commercial jets to attend the COP 28 climate conference that begins Thursday in Dubai.

The 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28, in the United Arab Emirates is expecting close to a record turnout for the annual gathering of the globalist elites to vent their never-ending call for international climate action.

King Charles will be flying in especially to deliver the opening address as he joins tens of thousands of others who have eschewed the benefits of video conferencing in favour of boarding carbon-spewing aircraft for their travels even as flying creates more carbon emissions than any other form of transportation.

According to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the massed 70-000-plus attendees will be double the number of COP21 delegates in Paris, the landmark summit during which the Paris Agreement was adopted.

Keep reading

Internal Docs Show Biden Admin Waived Taxpayer Safeguards to Boost Offshore Wind Project

The Biden administration quietly granted a request from an energy firm developing an offshore wind project off the coast of Massachusetts to waive development fees designed to safeguard taxpayers, according to internal documents reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) informed Vineyard Wind that it had waived a financial assurance for decommissioning costs fee in a June 15, 2021, letter obtained by watchdog group Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT). Federal statute mandates that developers pay that fee prior to construction on their lease, a potentially hefty fee designed to guarantee federal property is returned to its original state after a lessee departs its lease.

“At the same time the Department of the Interior was looking at forcing greater and more expensive bonding requirements on holders of long-standing oil and gas leases, they were relaxing these requirements on the nation’s first utility-scale offshore wind energy producer, one that just coincidentally happened to be a client of their incoming #2,” PPT Director Michael Chamberlain told Fox News Digital.

“If you want to talk about bad optics, I don’t see how they could be any worse than right here,” he said. “For an administration touting itself as the most ethical in history, this represents yet another incident in which Secretary Haaland’s Interior appears to have a tough time living up to that standard.”

Chamberlain noted that former Deputy Interior Secretary Tommy Beadreau, the second-highest ranked official at the Department of the Interior (DOI) which houses BOEM, had, according to his 2021 financial disclosure form, previously represented Vineyard Wind on legal matters while serving as a partner at the firm Latham & Watkins.

Keep reading

Three Graphs That Show There Is No “Climate Crisis”

As the West fitfully weakens industrial civilisation by trying to eliminate oil, coal and natural gas as energy sources, the scientific basis for Net Zero is based more on ‘general agreement’ than hard data. Climate scientists nevertheless sound optimistic about the progress that’s being made in destroying society’s carbon energy base.  

There are of course criticisms of the idea of a carbon-dioxide-induced apocalypse, largely supported as it is by general circulation (i.e., whole-earth) planetary models. There are too many different GCMs all with too many free parameters (aka ‘fudge factors’), as well as wildly divergent readings of historical climate records: Are violent climate events really more frequent, and how does weather actually relate to climate? The popular press cries havoc, but the data are not so clear. The looming economic costs of a Net Zero target are leading to some political pushback. Nevertheless, the recent jury acquittal of nine Extinction Rebellion vandals shows that passionate belief in the imminent dangers of CO2 is not limited to activists.

Climate science is complicated, but the key question is simple. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but are we responsible? Does the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a major effect on the temperature of the earth? The standard answer is “yes, of course”. But in fact there are good reasons for doubt. 

Popular accounts of the ‘climate emergency’ rarely show quantitative data. Yet there are widely available graphs that anyone can understand. Here are three graphs which suggest that the answer to the question is probably “no”. It is likely that beyond a certain point, carbon dioxide has a relatively minor effect on planetary temperature. 

Keep reading

Tiny Fraction Of Global Elites Emit As Much Carbon As Bottom Two-Thirds Of Humanity

Critics who rail against the hypocrisy of wealthy global elites jet-setting on carbon-spewing private planes while pontificating about the need for the rest of us to cut our climate footprints just got a boost from a new study.

It turns out that the world’s richest 1 percent emit about the same amount of carbon as the world’s poorest two-thirds, according to an analysis from the nonprofit Oxfam International.

This means that a small sliver of global elites, or 77 million people, have produced as much carbon as the 5 billion people that make up the bottom 66 percent by wealth, per the study.

The study also estimates that it would take roughly 1,500 years for someone in the bottom 99 percent to produce as much carbon as the wealthiest billionaires do in just one year.

The study was based on research compiled by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and examined the emissions of various income groups up to 2019. In summary, it suggested that the private jet-setting class of global leaders and policymakers, who take private planes to lead summits addressing the assumed dangers of climate change, may warrant charges of hypocrisy.

The analysis was published as global leaders prepare to meet for climate talks at the COP28 summit in Dubai later in November, where, much like other climate conferences, some elite participants will likely pontificate on the need for ordinary folk to end their reliance on cheap fossil fuel energy to make their ends meet.

Keep reading

Recycling Eco-Myths Is The Existential Threat

By promising a relatively simple solution to an alleged problem, it has enabled the left to control behavior through a made-up morality that stigmatized dissent – Only bad people refuse to recycle.

Like most progressive interventions – from welfare policies that destroyed families while increasing dependency, to drug use reforms that have filled city streets with desperate addicts – recycling plans that sound good on paper (and plastic) have continuously collided with reality so that even liberal outlets such as the New York Times (“Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not”), NPR (“Recycling plastic is practically impossible — and the problem is getting worse”) and the Atlantic magazine (“Plastic Recycling Doesn’t Work and Will Never Work”) have finally admitted its failures.

The same dynamic is now at work regrading a far more significant green fantasy: the left’s push to decarbonize the U.S. and other Western industrial economies during the next few decades and attain an eco-purity calculus known as Net Zero. While brandishing the moral cudgel with full force – President Biden describes climate change as “an existential crisis,” i.e., every person and puppy will die if we don’t submit to his agenda – the left also suggests the transition will be easy-peasy: Just build some windmills, install some solar panels, and swap out your car, stove, and lightbulbs for cleaner and cheaper alternatives.

Though much of the cheerleading media downplays this fact, it is already clear that Biden’s enormously expensive, massively disruptive goal is a pipe dream. In a recent series of articles, my colleagues at RealClearInvestigations have reported on several of the seemingly intractable problems that the administration and its eco-allies are trying to wish away.

The dishonesty begins with the engine of the green economy – the vast array of wind and solar farms that must be constructed to replace the coal and gas facilities that power our economy. James Varney reported for RCI that the Department of Energy’s official line is that the installations required to meet Biden’s goal of “100% clean electricity” by 2035 will require “less than one-half of one percent of the contiguous U.S. land area” – or roughly 15,000 of the lower 48’s roughly 3 million square miles. However, Varney noted, “the government report that furnished those estimates also notes that the wind farm footprint alone could require an expanse nine times as large: 134,000 square miles. That is equivalent to the land mass of Ohio, Indiana, and Kentucky combined – plus all of New England.

Echoing the 19th century adage that figures don’t lie, but liars figure, the discrepancy mostly involves estimates of what can be built around the windmills. Each turbine’s footprint is relatively small, but they have to be spaced far apart. The DOE’s smaller number is based on the fanciful assumption that all the surrounding land can be used for agriculture and other purposes, while the larger figure assumes none of it will. The truth probably is somewhere in between. That the government is trumpeting the impossibly small number – while ignoring the additional land needed to build transmission lines which will carry the current to end users – is telling and troubling.

Keep reading