Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Backers of a third large oil refinery proposal for B.C.'s North Coast made some high-profile appointments Wednesday, naming former Assembly of First Nations national chiefs Shawn Atleo and Ovide Mercredi as advisors to their team.

Pacific Future Energy, proposing what it calls the world's greenest refinery near Prince Rupert, announced the appointments Wednesday at a Vancouver Board of Trade event hosted by Stockwell Day, the former Conservative trade minister who has been the group's public face since August.

Pacific Future's proposal is similar to Kitimat Clean, a refinery bid launched in 2012 by David Black, chairman of Black Press. Both would be constructed from modules manufactured offshore to produce diesel, gasoline and other fuels for sale, avoiding the transport of heavy oil by tankers to reach export markets.

The third proposal is called Eagle Spirit Energy, headed by aboriginal author and lawyer Calvin Helin with financial backing from the Aquilini Group, the Vancouver family business that owns the Vancouver Canucks and extensive real estate and farm holdings.

Eagle Spirit is proposing a pipeline from the Alberta oil sands to an upgrader that would produce synthetic crude oil for export by tankers, likely from the Prince Rupert area.

Black announced last week that engineering firm Hatch Ltd. has completed a design and feasibility study for a refinery at an estimated cost of $22 billion, making it one of the 10 biggest in the world.

Black said in an interview he sees obvious similarities with the Pacific Future proposal, which describes new technology and carbon capture to reduce its environmental impact. Kitimat Clean proposes a new refining process that avoids production of petroleum coke, a coal-like byproduct of conventional heavy oil refining that is used as a high-carbon industrial fuel.

Black said his engineering report was prepared using proprietary and patented techniques, and won't be made public. He said the entry of Pacific Future, headed by an executive of Mexican conglomerate Grupo Salinas, shows the business case for a B.C. refinery is sound and there is capacity for more than one plant.

All proposals for B.C. North Coast refining require oil transport to the coast, either by rail or some version of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project, which received a federal environmental certificate this year and awaits approval by the federal cabinet.

All proposals also face opposition transport of heavy oil. Pacific Future has appointed Atleo as a senior advisor for partnerships, months after he was appointed by Vancouver Island University as an advisor for dialogue between First Nations, government and industry.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Gore's Data Is Twisting In The Wind

The Prophesies of Al Gore
Al Gore gave another PowerPoint performance to many of the delegates, activists, and reporters at the UN Climate Conference (COP-20) in Peru, even though many, if not most, of the data presented is contradicted by the IPCC's latest synthesis report. From Reason (emphasis added):

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate noted that most of the excess heat from global warming is being stored in the oceans and hinted, without stating outright, that rising sea surface temperatures are already intensifying hurricanes and typhoons. As examples, he cited the massive damage that Typhoon Haiyan and Superstorm Sandy inflicted on the Philippines and the U.S. respectively. Those storms were indeed intense, but not as intense as earlier storms such as Typhoons Tip (1979), Nora (1973), and Ida (1958). Gore also failed to mention that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) new Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report found, "There is low confidence that long-term changes in tropical cyclone activity are robust and there is low confidence in the attribution of global changes to any particular cause."

The former Vice-President evidently concluded if it rains more that must mean it floods more. Gore said that floods and mudslides are increasing "on every continent." He then treated the audience to a long series of slides featuring pictures and videos of recent fearsome floods and landslides from around the world. The cumulative impact of the dramatic images is to suggest that floods are getting worse and coming soon to your town. But the Synthesis report observes, "There is low confidence that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and magnitude of fluvial floods on a global scale."

If it is raining more, then why isn't it flooding more? Largely because significant floods don't result from intense short downpours, but instead from longer events such as a slow moving storm systems that intersect with spring snow melt. In any case, the good news is that number of people who die annually from floods around the world is down 98 percent since the 1930s. It is true that floods are destroying more property than before, but that's almost entirely because, as a result of economic growth, there's more property around to be destroyed.

Gore next suggested that the extra heat from man-made global warming "also pulls water out the soil which deepens droughts and makes them longer." Consequently, the world is experiencing "more droughts" and more "epic droughts." Again, the former Vice-President ran through a succession of photographs depicting heat-blasted fields and dried up reservoirs to illustrate his point. During his talk, Gore certainly left the impression, but didn't quite say, that global warming caused the recent California drought. And well he should be reticent; even Mother Jones reported just two days ago that "according to new research by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, California's drought was primarily produced by a lack of precipitation driven by natural atmospheric cycles that are unrelated to man-made climate change." Due largely to data issues, the Synthesis report concludes, "There is low confidence in observed global-scale trends in droughts."

…snip…

Somewhat oddly in the context of a talk on the dangers of climate change, Gore next cited the recent Living Planet Index report by the World Wildlife Fund that finds since 1970 that the populations of vertebrate species—mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish—have dropped by half. This is indeed alarming, but the report itself notes that climate change accounts for only 7 percent of the threats to the survival of the measured wildlife populations. That's not insignificant, but as the report makes clear reducing hunting, habitat loss and habitat degradation would do a lot more to protect endangered species.

Having recited his litany of the present and future dangers of man-made global warming, the Vice-President suggests that humanity is at a tipping point. "Easter Island stands as example of choices made wrongly by an ancient civilization," intones Gore. "We have a similar choice to make." Obviously, Gore is deploying as a parable for our times the popular narrative in which the population and culture of Easter Islanders collapsed after supposedly committing ecocide by chopping down all of their trees. Unluckily for Gore, that account is now being challenged by archaeologists, many of whom argue that any social "collapse" occurred after European contact as a result of epidemic disease and enslavement.

So what then is the opportunity that the climate crisis presents us? Investing in wind and solar power. No really. Gore enthusiastically cited the fact that wind turbine generation capacity has increased globally 10-fold since 2000. Actually, it's increased nearly 20-fold and is projected to nearly double by 2018. The investment consultancy Lazard reports that the cost of installing wind turbines has fallen by 58 percent since 2009. The firm now estimates that the unsubsidized levelized cost of wind is now between $37 and $81 per megawatt-hour compared to $61 and $87 per megawatt-hour for natural gas generation.

…snip…

In his presentation Gore skipped over the intermittency issue (the sun doesn't always shine and wind doesn't always blow) that makes wind and solar power problematic as baseload sources of electricity. Given that issue, an optimistic assessment of the prospects for renewable energy issued by the International Energy Agency this year forecasts that wind and solar together could supply 38 percent, and solar PV 16 percent of the world's electricity by 2050.

The icing on the cake was Gore reciting poetry to the attendees as reported by Michael Bastasch of The Daily Caller:

Former Vice President Al Gore showed up at the United Nations climate summit in Lima, Peru Wednesday to show creative support for an international global warming treaty.

Gore quoted poets from three different languages, according to the news site Responding to Climate Change. Apparently, Gore quoted poetry from China, Spain and the United States — likely because China, Europe and the U.S. are the world’s top emitters of carbon dioxide emissions.

 

[OldBlackDog]

48 science minds misuse the term “scientist” – namecalling is not science

A group of people calling themselves “leading scientists” think that what the climate really needs is some A-grade namecalling. Specifically, they want the word skeptic for themselves, and want everyone who is unconvinced by their argument to be called a “denier”. I guess they’ve finally realized how uncool it sounds to be an unskeptical scientist. Their reasoning is that they have 48 sciencey type celebrities and they can quote Carl Sagan. Their scientific greats include guys like Bill Nye the Science Guy, James Randi, and Dick Smith.

The headline reads:

End misuse of ‘sceptic’, urge 48 science minds
Me, I think – let’s aim higher, and end the misuse of of the term “scientist”. Real scientists debate the evidence and don’t use namecalling as scientific argument. Denier” is not a scientific term, it’s a form of character assassination from lazy minds who want to avoid discussing the data.

Make no mistake, “denier” is not a descriptive term in a science debate, it’s equal to saying “you have the brain of a rock”. Being in denial of observations to the point where a person in toto becomes labeled a denier, is shorthand for saying that they are so mentally deficient that a conversation is not worth having. Why start? It’s the oldest rhetorical trick in the book — a stone-age political ploy.

Then there’s the point about scientists using accurate English and defined terms. What, specifically, is a climate denier — someone who denies we have a climate? Is that **** sapiens denialist, or is it just someone who denies your political ideology? Could it be an all-purpose, sloppy misuse of English for advertising and promotion purposes? Looks like.

Real scientists would never talk of a consensus of opinions as if it were scientific evidence about the climate, nor would they use an ad hominem argument. Resorting to kindergarten namecalling shows that these “minds” are afraid, quaking, that the public might listen to skeptical scientists and judge their arguments for their content.

In a scientific debate, a “denier” must deny an observation. Yet the namecallers cannot name any observations that skeptical scientists deny. (I’ve been asking for nearly five years). Nor can they provide observational evidence to back up their “extraordinary claims”.

As they point out:

“Real skepticism is summed up by a quote popularised by Carl Sagan, ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

So who is making the extraordinary claim: Skeptical scientists say “climate models are exaggerating”. Unskeptical scientists say that building windmills in Hokum Downs will prevent floods in Taiwan. Where is the evidence?

Skeptical scientists ask for evidence. Unskeptical scientists call people “deniers”.

It’s a form of psychological projection. The unskeptical scientists are the ones who deny results from 28 million radiosondes and 35 years of satellite measurements. Unskeptical scientist deny that 98% of climate models did not predict the global pause in surface temperatures. But if you like namecalling, you can study it at the University of Queensland, and learn to be a certified tosser.

For the record (and for the 27th time). Where are the observations that show:
Climate models assumptions on water vapor feedback are correct and apply to increases in CO2? Water vapor feedback is the most powerful feedback in climate models (See figure 9.44 of AR4) Fully 28 million weather balloons show the assumptions don’t fit the observations. The IPCC says : ” The cause of this bias remains elusive.” Sure.
That there is one climate model that can predict the climate . Computer simulations of the climate not only fail on global scales1, but they can’t predict regional2, local3, short term, continental, or polar effects4 either. They are also wrong about humidity5, rainfall6a,6b,6c, drought7 and clouds8, as well as the all-important upper tropospheric patterns too.9, 10 Sure they can point to a model that predicts something correctly, but that model fails on lots of other points — show us a single model that understands The Climate.
That the missing heat is conclusively found in the oceans. The best data we have is the ARGO network — where each thermometer measures nearly a quarter of a million cubic kilometers of water. No scientist would ever accept that measurement as valid to one hundredth of a degree even for a swimming pool. Kidding, right?
More mysteries for “science minds” to explain: the world warmed just as fast in the 1870s as it did in the 1980s without all the CO2 (see the graph). Why are some people 95% certain that CO2 caused the latter, when they don’t know what caused the former? They also don’t know why the world started cooling 700 years ago, and started warming 300 years ago, long before our emissions increased.

“End misuse of ‘sceptic’, urge 48 science minds
A group of leading scientists and science journalists/commuicators – including Nobel winner Harold Kroto, Australian activist Dick Smith and ‘science guy’ Bill Nye - have called on the media abandon the use of the word ‘sceptic’ when describing views of climate science, saying in most cases the term ‘denier’ is more appropriate.”

“Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics.” –The Australian

In lieu of a scientific debate, the term “denier” — as applied en masse to thousands of people, is never appropriate.

Whats the opposite of skeptical?

Gullible.

REFERENCES
1 Hans von Storch, Armineh Barkhordarian, Klaus Hasselmann and Eduardo Zorita (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming? Academia

2 Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

3 Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]

4 Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.2330

5 Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

6a Christopher M. Taylor, Richard A. M. de Jeu, Françoise Guichard, Phil P. Harris & Wouter A. Dorigo ‘Afternoon rain more likely over drier soils’ will be published in Nature on 12 September 2012. www.nature.com DOI 10.1038/nature11377

6b Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013. [Abstract] [Final Revised Paper PDF]

6c R.K. Tiwari1,* and Rekapalli Rajesh2 (2014) Imprint of long-term solar signal in groundwater recharge fluctuation rates from North West China. Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060204

7 Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

8 Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

9 Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

10 Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [

 

[GLG]

So, who is going to fix this for you?
For this you need new governments, both federal and provincial.
Dont see that happening anytime soon and as both governments need tax money and people with jobs, the other partys will not be changing things.

There is this little problem as well.


The decline in investment is already pinching the labor market. Around 10,000 Norwegian oil workers have been laid off as the industry pares back spending, accounting for 10 percent of the sector’s total workforce, the Wall Street Journal reports. Oil workers are threatening to strike unless the government steps in to stem further losses.
And the way forward is murky.

Yes we need leadership but not from the usual suspects.
"So, who is going to fix this for you?" That's one of the problems in your thinking OBD. You seem to think it is someone else that is to blame or credit. How about taking ownership of problems or solutions. What can I do to fix the problems or what can we do to fix the problems. You seem to favor "what can you do to fix the problem" So .... Lead, follow or get heck out of the way.

What am I going to do? I'm getting off oil as fast as I can and what oil I still need will be offset by carbon sequestration wherever I can. Energy efficiency is also a path I am taking. Doing with less has been a choice for our family for years. Is it easy?....no, but it's doable. The risk is too high not to do something about it.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.adn.com/article/20141210...oast-will-send-fish-species-north-gulf-alaska

Study: Warming West Coast will send fish species north into Gulf of Alaska
Associated Press
December 10, 2014

SAN FRANCISCO — Warming seas will likely send West Coast fish species northward by about 20 miles a decade, and some species probably will disappear from southern ranges off California and Oregon, a new study says.

The study, in the January issue of Progress in Oceanography, projects how 28 West Coast species ranging from sharks to salmon will react as greenhouse gases warm the surface of the Pacific Ocean.

Warm-water species such as thresher sharks and chub mackerel will become more prominent off British Columbia and in the Gulf of Alaska, the study predicted. Food webs and behavior patterns will shift there as southern species move in, according to the study by four marine experts at West Coast fishing research centers and universities.

For the West Coast fishing industry, "the fish they depend on are going to move up north, and that means more travel time and more fuel will be needed to follow them. Or else they may need to switch to different target species," Richard Brodeur, a study co-author and senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in a statement.

"It may not happen right away, but we are likely to see that kind of trend," Brodeur said.

This year already saw Pacific Coast water temperatures rise 5 to 6 degrees above average, leading to sightings of tropical fish off California and giant sunfish off Alaska.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Greenpeace .


When the stunt-planners at Greenpeace sent teams of activists to trespass this week at Peru's Nazca archeological site, they must have thought their bumper-sticker messaging would look good on a Facebook page next to the 2,000-year-old geodesic drawings.

After all, the group is known for stringing banners from bridges and skyscrapers to draw attention to its environmental campaigns, and with U.N. climate talks taking place in Lima this week, the activists clearly wanted to make an impact.

And so they have. The impact of their footprints on the fragile desert site, in fact, will last "hundreds or thousands of years," according to outraged Peruvian officials.

So furious is the Peruvian government that it has barred the Greenpeace activists from leaving the country and is preparing criminal charges for "attacking archeological monuments," punishable by up to eight years in prison.

On Tuesday, culture ministry officials showed reporters aerial photographs of the damage, and said that when the Greenpeace trespassers snuck into the U.N. World Heritage site in the middle of the night, they marched single-file across the delicate volcanic rocks and white sand, leaving a path that has introduced a new line to the iconic Hummingbird-shaped figure.

The damage is "irreversible," Peruvian officials say, explaining that the rainless desert landscape is so delicate that visitors are required to obtain government permission and use special shoes to approach the site.

"What they have done is an attack on a site that is one of the most fragile in the world," cultural official Luis Jaime Castillo told reporters Tuesday.

Greenpeace issued an apology Wednesday, saying it was "deeply concerned about any offense Peruvians may have taken."

A statement on the group's Facebook page earlier in the week insisted that "absolutely NO damage was done" by the stunt, and that "no trace was left behind." The activists laid out yellow cloth lettering next to the hummingbird with the group's logo and the message: "Time for Change! The Future is Renewable."

The Greenpeace members who participated were from Germany, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Spain and Austria, according to the group, insisting that an archeologist was on hand at the site during the episode.

The Nazca Lines are one of South America's most storied archeological wonders, a mysterious series of huge animal, human and plant symbols that were carefully etched into the ground between 1,500 and 2,000 years ago. Tourists typically view them from the air.

 

[GLG]

Sad OBD very sad. I once had respect for your views, not so much anymore. You seem to have fallen into the "grand hoax" theory of life. Not sure were you went wrong but critical thinking has somehow been turned off. Denial is not the correct term, perhaps denialism would be better suited.

Denialism
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth. Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

 

[GLG]

Greenpeace .

When the stunt-planners at Greenpeace sent teams of activists to trespass this week at Peru's Nazca archeological site, they must have thought their bumper-sticker messaging would look good on a Facebook page next to the 2,000-year-old geodesic drawings.

What a stupid thing to do....

 

[GLG]

[h=1]Conservative Calls for Carbon Tax. Without saying "Tax".[/h][ElKtyFmpR5A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElKtyFmpR5A

 

[GLG]

DeSmogCAST 5: Canada's Clean Energy Revolution, Oilsands Tailings Pollution and COP20 Expectations


In this week's episode of DeSmogCAST we cover a new report in Canada that shows the clean energy sector making huge gains in investment and job-creation, despite a lack of strong support at the federal level. We also discuss a new study from Environment Canada that shows toxic pollutants from the Alberta oilsands' tailings ponds are being emitted into the atmosphere at much higher rates than previous estimated. Finally we turn our attention to the UNFCCC COP20 underway in Lima, Peru and ask what we can expect to see in the next week's top level, international climate negotiations.
Hosted by DeSmogBlog contributor Farron Cousins, this episode features DeSmog Canada's executive director Emma Gilchrist, DeSmogUK's new deputy editor Kyla Mandel and yours truly.

[yYmhH-Bcsng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYmhH-Bcsng

For more episodes of DeSmogCAST visit our DeSmogBlog Youtube page.
See below for articles mentioned in this episode:

Clean Energy Provided More Jobs Last Year Than Oilsands: Report

Geothermal Offers Cheaper, Cleaner Alternative to Site C Dam: New Report

Three Decades and Counting: How B.C. Has Failed to Investigate Alternatives to Site C Dam

Environment Canada Study Reveals Oilsands Tailings Ponds Emit Toxins to Atmosphere at Much Higher Levels than Reported

What Can We Expect From the Lima Climate Talks?

 

[OldBlackDog]

Interesting, no scientists in this group, all writers.

DeSmogCAST 5: Canada's Clean Energy Revolution, Oilsands Tailings Pollution and COP20 Expectations


In this week's episode of DeSmogCAST we cover a new report in Canada that shows the clean energy sector making huge gains in investment and job-creation, despite a lack of strong support at the federal level. We also discuss a new study from Environment Canada that shows toxic pollutants from the Alberta oilsands' tailings ponds are being emitted into the atmosphere at much higher rates than previous estimated. Finally we turn our attention to the UNFCCC COP20 underway in Lima, Peru and ask what we can expect to see in the next week's top level, international climate negotiations.
Hosted by DeSmogBlog contributor Farron Cousins, this episode features DeSmog Canada's executive director Emma Gilchrist, DeSmogUK's new deputy editor Kyla Mandel and yours truly.

[yYmhH-Bcsng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYmhH-Bcsng

For more episodes of DeSmogCAST visit our DeSmogBlog Youtube page.
See below for articles mentioned in this episode:

Clean Energy Provided More Jobs Last Year Than Oilsands: Report

Geothermal Offers Cheaper, Cleaner Alternative to Site C Dam: New Report

Three Decades and Counting: How B.C. Has Failed to Investigate Alternatives to Site C Dam

Environment Canada Study Reveals Oilsands Tailings Ponds Emit Toxins to Atmosphere at Much Higher Levels than Reported

What Can We Expect From the Lima Climate Talks?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/w...rod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0



Strange Climate Event: Warmth Toward U.S.


By CORAL DAVENPORTDEC. 11, 2014




Photo



Secretary of State John Kerry, left, and President Ollanta Humala of Peru in Lima. Credit Martin Mejia/Associated Press

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Share


Tweet


Email


Save


more


Continue reading the main story




Continue reading the main story

LIMA, Peru — When it comes to global warming, the United States has long been viewed as one of the world’s worst actors. American officials have been booed and hissed during international climate talks, bestowed with mock “Fossil of the Day” awards for resisting treaties, and widely condemned for demanding that other nations cut their fossil fuel emissions while refusing, year after year, to take action at home.

Suddenly, all that has changed.

At the global climate change negotiations now wrapping up in Peru, American negotiators are being met with something wildly unfamiliar: cheers, applause, thanks and praise.

It is an incongruous moment, arriving at a time when so many aspects of American foreign policy are under fire.


Continue reading the main story

Related Coverage



A coal-burning power plant in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. Officials meeting in Peru are working on a pact to curb global warming.

With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in SightDEC. 9, 2014




Burning debris from Typhoon Hagupit in the Philippines. At a United Nations summit meeting, officials from the nation, which scientists say is among the most vulnerable to climate change, are pressing every nation to reduce their use of fossil fuels.

Philippines Pushes Developing Countries to Cut Their Emissions DEC. 8, 2014




Investors Recruited to Restore Farmland in Latin AmericaDEC. 7, 2014




A child walking near her home with a coal-fired power plant in the background in Beijing, China.

Optimism Faces Grave Realities at Climate TalksNOV. 30, 2014


But the enthusiastic reception on climate issues comes a month after a historic announcement by the United States and China, the world’s two largest polluters, that they would jointly commit to cut their emissions. Many international negotiators say the deal is the catalyst that could lead to a new global climate change accord that would, for the first time, commit every nation in the world to cutting its own planet-warming emissions.

The American policy that helped prod China — and change the international perception of the United States — is one of President Obama’s most contentious domestic decisions. His June announcement that he would use his executive authority to push through an aggressive set of regulations on coal-fired power plants in the United States — the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas pollution — set off a firestorm of legal, political and legislative opposition at home. Critics have called it a “war on coal” that could devastate the American economy.

But in the arena of international climate change negotiations, it has fundamentally transformed the feeling toward his administration.

“The U.S. is now credible on climate change,” said Laurence Tubiana, the French climate change ambassador to the United Nations, who is leading efforts to broker a new agreement to be signed by world leaders in Paris next year.



Veterans of two decades of climate change negotiations called the turnaround in America’s image profound.

“Countries got weary of negotiations with the U.S.; it got tough in negotiations, but it didn’t deliver,” said Yvo de Boer, the former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Now the U.S. has policies in place to deliver on its word.”

Mr. de Boer praised Secretary of State John Kerry, who worked for months to broker the joint announcement with China and has pushed to translate Mr. Obama’s domestic action into commitments for similar action from other countries.

“This is the first time in the history of the climate talks that the U.S. Secretary of State has engaged directly in the climate talks,” said Mr. de Boer, now director of the Global Green Growth Institute. “That direct engagement gives a lot of credibility to the U.S. position.”

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Kerry attended the United Nations climate change talks for nearly 20 years as a senator, often as the only representative from Congress. On Thursday, a day before this two-week round of talks was set to conclude, Mr. Kerry arrived here greeted by a cheering crowd.

“Every nation — I repeat, every nation — has a responsibility to do its part,” Mr. Kerry said in a speech intended to spur negotiators. “If you are a big developed nation and you do not lead, you are part of the problem.

“I’m proud that the U.S. has accepted responsibility,” he said. “We’re going straight to the largest source of emissions.”

He even cited the most contentious impact of the Obama administration’s new rules — they are expected to shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants.

“We’re going to take a bunch of them out of commission,” he said.

The day before, White House officials gave a detailed presentation on the new regulations to a standing-room-only crowd of international delegates and journalists. Janet McCabe, the senior Environmental Protection Agency official charged with drafting the regulations, appeared at the presentation on a video link, laying out in exhaustive detail how the new rules would work, at the federal and state levels.

Negotiators and delegates from dozens of countries have peppered the Americans with questions about the new rules — from the technical details to their legal status, given that Mr. Obama has enacted the policy without new action from Congress. While that strategy has enraged Republicans and others in the United States, it has drawn praise from the other governments here.

“The U.S. has shown, not only because of the announcement with China, but also the June 2 rule, the political will to move this process, even with the difficulty between the executive branch and Congress,” said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who is presiding over the Lima summit.

In Washington, Mr. Obama’s opponents are preparing a full-on assault of the regulation. Leading the charge is Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, the incoming Senate majority leader. For Mr. McConnell, whose home state is a major coal producer and relies on coal-fired power plants for more than 90 percent of its electricity, the fight against Mr. Obama’s climate change rules is personal.

“This unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs,” Mr. McConnell said in an emailed statement. “It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape. Easing the burden already created by E.P.A. regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.”

For now, despite the new Republican majority in the Senate, it appears unlikely that Mr. McConnell will be able to summon the votes necessary to repeal Mr. Obama’s rules — a point that American negotiators are making repeatedly here.

Still, some skepticism remains. During his first year in office, President Obama promised world leaders at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen that he would soon sign a sweeping new law to fight climate change. But that bill failed in Congress, and the United States went back to being viewed as the world’s largest economy and largest historic greenhouse gas polluter, refusing to change course. Mr. Obama was seen as well intentioned, but lacking credibility because of his failure to push through climate action at home.

Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story

Continue reading the main story

This time, American officials continue to assure their counterparts that the United States will keep its word.

Even negotiators who praise the new American and China emissions cuts warn that the measures will not come close to preventing the costly early impacts of global warming.

The deal being worked out in Lima is expected to create a framework requiring all nations to put forward plans over the next six months to cut their own emissions. But those plans will be determined by the nations themselves, guided by their own domestic politics, not by the amount of reduction that scientists say is necessary. And they are not scheduled to be enacted until 2020.

Tony deBrum, the foreign minister of the low-lying Marshall Islands, which are at risk of losing land and vital infrastructure to rising seas, praised Mr. Kerry and the lead American climate negotiator, Todd D. Stern, for meeting with him personally.

“They have asked to hear the perspective of a small island nation,” he said. “That has given us confidence that they take our voice seriously.

“But what has been announced is not enough,” he added.

 

[GLG]

[h=1]Secretary Kerry Delivers Remarks on Climate Change at the COP-20[/h]Published on Dec 11, 2014
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks on climate change at the COP-20 in Lima, Peru on December 11, 2014.
[sZRFRdWNY4k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRFRdWNY4k

 

[OldBlackDog]

Europe feeling the cost of climate change policy.
R. Helmer

I recently attended an 'exchange of views' with the European commission on their negotiating position for the upcoming climate talks in Lima, ahead of next year's Paris conference, and I shared with them some unpopular views. Part of the package seems to be a proposal for an €8bn fund to help developing countries deal with 'the effects of climate change'. In UKIP we take the view that climate mitigation on the Kyoto model is probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, and ruinously expensive.

Unnecessary, because the science underpinning climate alarmism is highly speculative. There has been no global warming for nearly two decades. The computer models on which it is based have repeatedly failed to deliver on their predictions. Far from being settled, there is a lively scientific debate about the sensitivity of the climate system to atmospheric CO2. The UN intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) favours a figure of three degrees centigrade per doubling of CO2. Many scientists, looking at recent temperature trends, believe that one degree centigrade would be nearer the mark. The IPCC figure depends on heroic estimates of positive feedback effects. But there is both positive and negative feedback, and many scientists suggest that the net balance may be negative.

It is ineffectual for many reasons. First, there are reportedly 1200 new coal-fired power stations in the global pipeline (including, perhaps surprisingly, more than 20 in Germany). Global emissions will increase whatever we do. The recent decline in US emissions is based on the switch from coal to gas, not on climate mitigation or renewables. The Chinese have agreed that their emissions will peak by 2030, or in other words, they've kicked it into the long grass. However, by 2030 their demographic decline will have begun, so emissions may well decline anyway. And no one counts the inefficiencies in fossil fuel back-up as it runs intermittently to complement intermittent renewables.

"In UKIP we take the view that climate mitigation on the Kyoto model is probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, and ruinously expensive"
Ruinously expensive renewables were supposed to become competitive when fossil fuel prices went up, but they're going down. Former industry commissioner Antonio Tajani said that we are creating 'an industrial massacre' in the EU with energy prices. We are driving energy-intensive businesses offshore, taking their jobs and their investment with them. And we are forcing households and pensioners into fuel poverty. We are damaging our economy while exporting both jobs and emissions.

We have seen climate summits come and go, and they always disappoint. In a triumph of hope over experience, negotiators are now talking up their expectations of success in Lima and Paris. I predict first, that they will be disappointed again, and second, that even if they strike a deal on paper it will largely fail on delivery.

British voters and industry (and I daresay continental voters and industry as well) are already feeling the cost of energy. The massive upfront investments made in a futile attempt to mitigate highly speculative problems in the distant future, the job losses and factory closures. Now in addition, they are expected to contribute to a massive fund to help developing countries deal with problems that have not yet occurred and will probably never occur.

So what is UKIP's approach? We should be monitoring events, looking at the data, revisiting the science in light of actual climate trends. Then we should invest modest sums in adaptation, as and when and if needed, rather than multibillion investments upfront on solutions that won’t deliver and may not be needed at all. Future generations will look back in astonishment and disbelief at the vast waste of resources generated by climate alarmism in the early 21st century.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Hottest Year Ever? Not Quite



2014 could be the hottest year ever, enthused reporters, environmentalists and government delegates as they descended on Lima, Peru for a UN global warming gabfest, hoping against hope for good news after 18 straight years in which temperatures refused to climb. The increase reported by the World Meteorological Organization for the first 10 months of 2014 — released to give the UN gathering some gravitas — wasn’t enormous, just one-hundredth of one degree warmer than the previous record. But beggars can’t be choosers, especially among determined doomsayers, for whom hope springs eternal.

These upbeat doomsayers — maybe a majority of the 8,000 in attendance from 196 participating countries — had little else to cling to. In the Arctic, the ice cover is now greater than it’s been over the average of the last 15 years. In the Antarctic, the prospects for gloom are sadder still — the sea ice cover is at an all-time high, having set records the last three years in a row. Worse — as underwater robots have just discovered — the ice is much thicker than previously thought. Oh sure, the doomsayers can ordinarily console themselves with computer models showing all this ice is an anomaly — that it should have melted long ago. But what good are computer models by the world’s top climate change scientists — all consensusing one another — when the population at large becomes each year harder to rouse to panic?

In the Antarctic, the sea ice cover is at an all-time high

Now, as the global warming enthusiasts are packing their bags to leave Lima, bad luck threatens to nose them out of even their one-hundredth-of-one-degree edge. The figures for November — month number 11 — have just come in and it looks like the U.S. is once again betraying the cause: November 2014 with its polar vortex saw almost 9000 record lows, ushering in a record extent of snow cover for North America. To compound the bad luck, the polar vortex has crossed the Atlantic to inflict the U.K. with what’s being billed there as the coldest winter in a century. Barring a miraculously balmy December, the Lima attendees fear, that one-hundredth-of-one degree lead will now be lost.

In truth, even if Christmas does bring warmth, it won’t matter a whit, and not because the true measurements — based on comprehensive satellite readings rather than from a scattering of thermometers on land and ocean buoys — show 2014 to be nowhere near setting records. The doomsayers have been crying wolf for decades but the wolf never appeared. None of the computer models — the sole basis of alarmism — have proven to be accurate. None of the technologies promising to counter climate change— from wind turbines to electric vehicles to carbon sequestration — have been able to deliver. None of the carbon markets have proven to be viable. The public in the developed world has turned skeptical on global warming. And now no government will pay much of anything but lip service in perpetuating the climate change narrative.

The rich western countries are slashing subsidies to renewables, even retroactively abrogating agreements with renewables suppliers, leading to layoffs, bankruptcies and exits from the industry. Governments are ditching their plans to establish carbon markets and carbon taxes. They are backing away from past commitments to the UN to reduce carbon emissions. Some, like Canada and Japan long ago walked away from Kyoto agreements, and all are refusing to walk into onerous new ones. The U.S. Republican Congress, unusually explicit in its hostility to the UN and its climate policies, is blocking funding to the UN’s Green Climate Fund.

What governments are doing is turning to fossil fuels. Thanks to fracking, the U.S. has become the world’s largest oil producer, creating much of the glut now crashing oil prices, just as fracking earlier made the U.S. the world’s largest gas producer, crashing gas prices. Not only is the U.S. gearing up to export both oil and gas, it is also a major coal exporter, helping to crash prices there, too, and to bring affordable fossil fuel to the world. According to estimates this month from the International Energy Agency, the next quarter century and beyond belong to fossil fuels, which just keep growing and growing in popularity.

Many at Lima, perhaps most, understand that fossil fuels are their friend, especially those from poor countries like China and India that want to speed their economic development, or be compensated if they don’t. They’re at Lima, not to sequester carbon but to sequester funds — they demand $100-billion per year — from Western governments willing to pay them to play the game. Many others, those who take the game seriously, hear no dissenting views, and embrace the UN’s call to cut global CO2 emissions to zero, are either willfully blind, deaf or dumb.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental group. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

 

[GLG]

Interesting, no scientists in this group, all writers.

Interesting your lack of courage to accept the science and join us in 2014 to make a better world for the future.

 

[GLG]

In UKIP we take the view that climate mitigation on the Kyoto model is probably unnecessary, certainly ineffectual, and ruinously expensive.

Playing the old card that doing the right thing costs too much so let's continue to do the wrong thing. Morally bankrupt thinking from the denial crowd. Is this your idea of being an adult?

 

[GLG]

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto-based environmental policy group funded by the oil companies to deny Climate Change LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Yup and his theory is "it's the sun" or "cosmic rays" anything but CO2..... Intellectually bankrupt person trying to put forth his crazy ideas and wear a green coat at the same time. Denial comes in all shape, colours, and sizes... the common thread is delusion.....

 

[GLG]

Published on Apr 10, 2012
DeSmogBlog investigates the controversial decision by Alberta's government to ignore the threat of rapid industrial expansion in the Alberta Tar Sands region, and instead kill thousands of wolves to appear to be doing something to save dwindling woodland caribou populations. Through interviews with scientists, wildlife experts and a First Nations chief, the myth of Canada's "ethical oil" is further exposed as oil industry greenwashing. Learn more at http://www.desmogblog.com/CryWolf

[Rh577CMmf60]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh577CMmf60

 

[GLG]

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that our climate is changing, Earth is getting warmer, sea levels are rising, and it’s primarily because of humans putting lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Whether you already trust in the science, you’re undecided, or you disagree with what all this, this video is for you!
[ffjIyms1BX4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4