Climate News – July 2024
In the Trump Biden debate ‘climate change’ was hardly mentioned
CNN described it as causing extreme heat, wildfires etc. Biden said it was an existential issue and he had halved ‘pollution’, while Trump claimed he withdrew from the Paris Agreement because it was ripping off the US.
The Trump campaign confirmed he would again leave the Paris Agreement.
Trump later said:
“the thing that’s an existential threat is not global warming where the ocean will rise, maybe 1/8 of an inch in the next 497 years.”
The US Supreme Court has overturned the 1984 Chevron deference, which deemed departmental experts to be better interpreters of legislation than courts.
The 1981 ruling led to increased stringency, for example on emissions from power plants, which would likely accelerate their closure. The change’s outcome is uncertain but Francis Menton concludes, “the end of Chevron is good news for those resisting the growth of the government.”
Anticipating a ‘net zero’-obsessed UK Labour government, firms are already shelving oil and gas activity in the North Sea. This is notwithstanding a surge (regretted by the propagandistic International Energy Agency) in oil and gas investment.
Britain’s Supreme Court rejected a proposed new oil well, on grounds that the local authority approving it had not taken into account its effect on ‘climate change’ as required by Britain’s acceptance of the Aarhus Convention.
This will likely prevent any new ‘fossil fuel’ development and is unlikely to be overturned by an incoming Labour Government.
Germany’s constitutional court is requiring large budget cuts. Research institutes have warned against cutting energy research funding. They claim this could bring a “massive decline in German industry’s ability to innovate in technologies for the energy transition.”
Lufthansa, like Air France, is raising fares specifically to cover new EU environmental rules.
The outcome of the EU elections saw the Centre Left led by Von der Leyen remaining in charge. But major gains were made by right of centre parties hostile to ‘carbon’ taxes and the Paris Agreement.
Following a loss of competitiveness due to energy costs, Spiked considers the aftermath will result in German politics shifting away from ‘net zero’. The Christian Democrats (the largest party) has already embraced nuclear.
The success of the “right” in France destroyed the ruling Macronist dominance causing the President to call a general election. In Italy, Prime Minister Meloni confirmed her authority.
Polls show Australians strongly believe that global warming is a problem and we need to do something about it now. Only one third thought the government’s “82 per cent by 2030” renewable target was over-ambitious.
37 percent of Australians oppose nuclear power (which means 63 percent approve – Ed)
However, the Australian Opposition is promoting nuclear and is moving to reduce the pace of exiting fossil fuels. The Government is taunting it to declare that it would abandon the Paris Agreement.
As Tony Thomas notes, The Australian Academy of Science, despite its green-Left credentials, strongly supports nuclear, which is among the safest energy sources (underlining the hazards with intermittent sources that require storage was a tragic fire in a South Korea battery plant that caused 22 fatalities).
The Australian government’s rejection of nuclear energy is not shared by kindred parties. These include the US Democrats, where Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, herself a climate warrior, has called for “hundreds” of large nuclear reactors to be built.
Similarly, the British Labour Party promises to extend the lifetime of existing nuclear plants, build many more and complete the delayed Hinkley reactor. There remains a consensus favouring nuclear in France in spite of cost overruns with the latest plant.
The Swiss Parliament rejected the European Court of Human Rights finding that the nation must, “impose stricter climate goals and plans, requiring deeper emission reductions and more restrictions on fossil fuel use in the county”.
There are claims that this sets a precedent in undermining legal oversight of democratic governance.
Seeking to restore momentum for ‘climate change’, United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called for governments to ban advertising from ‘fossil fuel’ companies.
Germany’s top court, in line with a pending EU regulation, now requires firms that advertise products labelled “climate neutral” to provide a detailed explanation.
Roger Pielke jnr. examines the modelling forecasts for CO2 that are focussed on alarmist policy makers’ concerns. He produces this graph showing the trend to ‘fossil’ free fuels, noting that on recent trends the world hits ‘net zero’ in 2203 but that each increment of reduction is increasingly costly.
BP, under new management, has reversed course amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy. It has imposed a hiring freeze on offshore wind projects, paused new such developments and placed a renewed emphasis on oil and gas.
Lazard’s annual report on US “levelized energy costs” like that of the increasingly criticised CSIRO, argues that ‘renewables’ are the cheapest source of power but notes that, “diverse generation fleets will be required to meet baseload power needs over the long term”.
Wind and solar costs have been rising since 2021; without subsidies, and including “firming costs” to ensure their reliable supply, they exceed the costs of gas. The Energy Bad Boys estimate wind costs are $72 per MWh compared with the low Lazard estimate of $27 and draw attention to unreasonable assumptions like excluding transmission costs.
Like the UK, the Australian government is increasingly subsidising ‘renewables’ through Contracts for Difference that lock-in funding for ‘renewable’ energy facilities for 30 years.
The Government refuses to offer estimates of the costs.
Ignoring nuclear, the energy market operator says, to achieve ‘net zero’, by 2050 Australia will need to install 16 times its current capacity of batteries and pumped hydro, while large-scale wind and solar generation will have to jump six fold.
Robert Bryce shows that wind/solar has risen over 20 years to comprise six percent of primary energy with hydrocarbon use increasing 3.2 times faster.
He also shows the changes in countries’ emissions over the past few years.
Rupert Darwell analyses the costs incurred by investors in “Environment Social Governance” funds – actually now virtually a pseudonym for CO2 ‘net zero’.
In Australia the S&P Global Clean Energy Select Index showed a 16 per cent loss of value over the past year compared with an 11 per cent loss for diversified stock. Funds formerly badging themselves as ‘green’ are now quietly increasing investment in reliable, commercial energy.
Drawing from the Happer, Lindzen and Koonin paper, Jo Nova points out that even if all the world were to go to ‘net zero’ by 2050 the net decrease in warming would be a one-off 0.3C.
Will Happer notes that the scientific ‘consensus’ prior to global warming alarmism was CO2 might contribute 0.75C, shared even by the key warmist scientist, Stephen Schneider (when his alarmism was prospective global cooling).
Schneider (1971) said that even with an impossible tenfold CO2 increase, “the temperature increase does not exceed 2.5°C”.
Echoing Climate: the Movie, Ian McNaughton finds that increasing temperatures are just as likely to bring increasing concentrations of CO2 as vice-versa. He adds that CO2 increases or decreases should not concern humanity and that the increased concentrations caused by liberating CO2 from the earth’s crust is bringing great benefits as plant fertilizer.
The CO2 Coalition’s Gregory Wrightstone makes similar points in debunking global warming myths.
A rigorous international study of ice in Antarctica since the 1930s has found wide variability in increases and reductions but no long term trend.
Kip Hansen discusses the mainstream media inventing ‘greenhouse’-caused fatalities – his bottom line: the warming over the past 20 years (whatever the cause) prevented many more deaths than it caused.
Roger Pielke examines the US natural disaster trend (mainly ‘greenhouse’ attributed) and finds it to be manipulated to create an illusion of harm to justify more government intervention and control.
Drawing from the work of Ritchie and Rosado, the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows declining disaster numbers.
See more here regulationeconomics.com
Bold emphasis added
Header image: Reuters
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.