Currently, the European Union produces only about 8 percent of the global carbon emissions. However, since the beginning of the industrial age, its cumulative emissions are among the highest in the world.
On Friday China is expected to release details of a domestic emissions-trading market aimed at helping it to meet its target of peak emissions in 2030 and net zero emissions by 2060.
And that is NET zero emissions, which is different from zero emissions. I am sure the Chinese cannot believe what complete idiots we in the West have become. Not sure I can believe it myself but the evidence is overwhelming.
I read the words, and then read them again, and so I will share but it is still hard to fathom. I am obviously missing something since our senior politicians cannot be this out of it. As you read the following, bear in mind that the word “ambitious” is apparently the new synonym for insane.
Australia will target running the electricity grid entirely from solar and wind generation by 2025 under a 100 per cent renewable target laid out by the power system operator….
The ambitious goal – putting the nation on track to lead the world transitioning to clean energy – has been set by the new boss of the Australian Energy Market Operator, who said it would mark “uncharted territory” for the country as it works out how to integrate more renewables into the power system as old coal plants face retirement.
Still, integrating massive amounts of renewables faces several hurdles. An Energy Security Board report said a failure to deal with the entry of intermittent supply could cost the nation in the long term, with the market operator forced to intervene at record rates so far this year. “With our existing tool kit, it’s getting harder for us to manage the stability of the power system as the penetration of solar and wind, even at today’s levels, pushes the system to its limits,” Mr Westerman will say.
Hurdles, are there? But look, they have a whole four years to work things out so why worry?
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015….
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.
So what. It’s been an obvious scam from the start so why should anyone change their minds just because they are provided with some obvious facts about the cynicism and lies of the left?
The massive scale of China’s emissions highlights the importance of President Xi Jinping’s drive to peak carbon emissions before 2030 and reach net-zero by 2060. China accounted for 27 per cent of global emissions. The U.S., the second biggest emitter, contributed 11 per cent while India for the first time surpassed the European Union with about 6.6 per cent of the global total.
Still, China also has the world’s largest population, so its per capita emissions remain far less than those of the U.S. And on a historical basis, OECD members are still the world’s biggest warming culprits, having pumped four times more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than China since 1750.
The Chinese government intends to reach net-zero emissions 39 years from now. Our media are such ignorant clowns, but at least they did tell us where Chinese emissions have now gone. The OECD, it might be noted, includes Australia who is not anywhere near the main contributor to the total.
Might just mention here the Candu Reactor which is used by Ontario Hydro to produce nuclear energy and has been doing so since the 1960s, when I used to work for them (maybe it was in 1970). It’s amazing what a superstitious lot the left really are in in opposing nuclear energy.
And they are aiming for “net-zero” emissions which is not the same as zero emissions:
Getting to net zero means we can still produce some emissions, as long as they are offset by processes that reduce greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
Gullible does not even come close to describing what utter clowns we are dealing with. Fantasy from end to end.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has just released a note on “guidance on managing the financial risks of climate change” which includes the graphic shown above. Now, if they were releasing an approach to dealing with the psychologically disturbed people who take this stuff seriously, that would be one thing. But they seem to believe that the risk actually comes from global warming itself. What can be done with such fools? They will be the financial ruin of us.
Peterson is well out of his depth dealing with climate change, just as he is in discussing politics generally, philosophy and economics. Lomborg is usually too much of a global warming person for me, but here he is confronted by someone who really knows just about nothing other than what you find in the mainstream media so comes out sounding sensible. Peterson really should keep out of these kinds of arguments.
The Victorian government hopes to cut emissions by almost double the level of the Morrison government by 2030 in an ambitious policy positioning the state as a leader in tackling climate change. Acting Premier James Merlino said Victoria would aim to reduce emissions by 28-33 per cent by 2025 and 45-50 per cent by 2030, nearly twice the 26-28 per cent target made by the federal government by the end of this decade. Victoria criticised the lack of action from Scott Morrison on climate and said it was embarrassed by Australia’s showing at the recent climate summit run by US President Joe Biden. “The Commonwealth government cannot continue to abrogate its responsibilities on a global stage when it comes to climate change,” Victoria’s energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said at a press conference on Sunday.
Might note there is no mention of the Victorian Opposition position in the news story.
Once the left discovered how dumb its constituency is there has been no stopping them. However, there is also this comment to consider which adds a different perspective.
Going to point out that the good citizens of Texas did NOT vote for this nonsense, did NOT want it. No one outside of Austin was saying “Wow, we need more renewable energy sources!” I’m certainly interested in pursuing alternative sources of energy as are most people but I am not willing to replace what we know works with unproven technology that has a spurious track record and tends to cost ridiculous amounts of money for minimal output. Despite the fact nobody voted for this nonsense we got this anyway. In a “Red” state. Ponder that. In Texas we got a program we didn’t want and didn’t vote for and we’re considered “conservative”.
No doubt $66 billion includes a very large incentive for fraud and larceny of all kinds. Might as well mention this as well.
Investments only make sense if you can get an actual *return* on your investment equal to or greater than just dumping it into T-bills. The $66B ‘invested’ in solar and wind can only make a return if the government essentially taxes the citizens to transfer the money to the invest-ee, and behold, that’s exactly what is happening. And since there’s no real limits on it, the tax money shoveling to connected cronies rapidly becomes a huge scam.
I read this sentence which began the article and stopped right there. This, I said to myself, is the single most strikingly offputting statement that I have ever read that would ensure that from then on I would not trust a word of what follows. This was the sentence:
Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth.
These climate cranks are literally mad. There is no reasoning with them, and the wronger they are, the more the will to believe becomes stronger. From:
When dealing with a fundamentalist religion it does no good to point out the facts and data about improving environmental conditions, or the reasons behind these happy trends (namely economic growth, open markets, and technological advance), or the sorry record of environmental doomsday predictions ever since the first Earth Day 51 years ago. This one may be my favorite:
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”