US Climate Election Squares Off as Net Zero Falters Despite NATO Climate Activism

As media outlets frame the upcoming US election as a showdown on climate, Net Zero projects falter in Europe and US Inflation Reduction Act projects stall, says Friends of Science Society.

Ironically, NATO has made climate front and centre in their spring 2024 report and seems more focused on battling climate disinformation instead of wartime defense of NATO partners.

CALGARY, Alberta, Aug. 19, 2024 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — As the US “Climate Election” looms, the Financial Times reported on Aug. 11, 2024, that delays have hit 40% of Biden’s major Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) projects, many of them climate related,.

Says Friends of Science. Reportedly, some $84 bn of the $400 bn IRA projects, are stalling out over lack of market demand or election uncertainty as climate hawks and energy security champions square off.

According to journos at Covering Climate Now, the US Democrat’s VP Kamala Harris/Governor Tim Walz ticket is positioned as climate-friendly. Reuters perspective of Feb. 2024 was that a win for Republican Donald Trump would undo much of the Biden admin’s climate policy.

In a recent Fraser Institute report, author and economist Ross McKitrick references a Bjorn Lomborg analysis of US greenhouse gas reduction targets and their likely impact on reducing global warming: “According to Lomborg (2016) the US climate target under the Paris Treaty …

[if met]…global average temperatures as of 2100 would be reduced by 0.031° C compared to if the US did nothing. Prorating this by the size of Canada’s proposed emission reduction we find the global average temperature would be reduced by 0.007° C (seven thousandths of a degree Celsius) as of 2100 compared to the case if Canada does nothing”

The UN “People’s Climate Vote 2024” survey from June of 73,000 people in 77 countries claims that “80 per cent – or four out of five – people globally want their governments to take stronger action to tackle the climate crisis.”

Friends of Science Society notes that the UN survey questions on pages 19 and 20, conflate extreme weather with climate and only ask for emotional responses, rather than evaluating empirical evidence. Climate change is measured over 30, 50, 100-year and millennial cycles; it is not evidenced by a spate of extreme weather events.

In Canada, the Globe and Mail published an op-ed by pollster Nik Nanos on Aug. 10, 2024, which showed a waning public interest in the Net Zero transition. “As more and more Canadians feel crushed by the rising cost of things such as housing, groceries and energy, interest in greening their lives is weakening…. the percentage of Canadians who are confident that we will reach our net-zero goal is a paltry 2 per cent.”

Robert Lyman, retired energy economist, wrote a report on the costs of Canada’s climate policies and cited a survey published in Nature, February 2024, found that people would be willing to spend less than 1% of their income to support climate initiatives.

One per cent of average Canadian income for climate change would be $431. Canadian climate measures from 2020-2030 are ~$476 billion, or $11,900 per resident of Canada; roughly $2,800 per household per year.

Friends of Science Society points out that survey questions should include “How much are you willing to pay for or sacrifice for climate action?” Friends of Science review of “Getting to Net Zero” forecasts decades of degrowth and poverty.

While most citizens in the NATO countries assume that NATO is most concerned with wartime defense of their nations, the 2024 “NATO Climate Change and Security Impact Assessment” seems obsessed with climate change. On page 27, they dedicate a section to “Energy Transition and Climate-related Disinformation,” claiming that Kremlin-backed actors push climate change denialism.

In fact, in Germany, it was Kremlin-backed green activists who encouraged Germany’s heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas and the closure of reliable nuclear facilities, as Drieu Godefridi, author of “The Green Reich” reported in 2022.

Russia’s position on climate change seems unchanged since its 2004 position on Kyoto, forerunner to the Paris Agreement.

Russian climate models, which use a small warming factor for carbon dioxide concentration, consistently closely parallel observed temperatures, compared to Western climate models which use a higher warming response rate for carbon dioxide, and which project a ‘hothouse’ future.

Wars cannot be won on wind and solar power; ample energy security is key to a strong economy, good healthcare, jobs and national defense, says Friends of Science Society.