It seems that the UN is taking a lesson from the US Congress in that their reports like the bills from Congress are getting longer and longer. At almost 4,000 pages, I was amazed to hear, within minutes of its release, a list of its conclusions, all of which were dire for humanity.  One report even said that if we stopped all energy related activity, the environment would continue to degrade until at least 2050!

Fortunately, responsible individuals (which seems to exclude most reporters) have had an opportunity to read the report and they are now stepping up with their analysis. In the article linked below, some key bits of information are revealed which somehow managed to be ignored by the talking-heads of the news agencies. Poor modeling, comparisons to past activities in the past, the slowing of trends, etc. are revealed while the UN report also downplays the ability to forecast hurricanes and other weather activity with the technology and computer models currently in use. As Holman Jenkins writes in the WSJ (8/10/21), “Green subsidies as now designed will have no effect on emissions and therefore, no effect on climate change”. But hey, they feel good to many people and isn’t virtue signaling enough?

Hopefully, the UN report will be read more fully and be a point from which more realistic options for dealing with our environment will be adopted; but I doubt it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-un-united-nations-global-warming-floods-wildfire-stevens-palmer-koonin-11628631428?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

One of the reasons I enjoy Bjorn Lomborg is that he wants to protect the environment but he also wants to help humanity. He offers solutions and ideas that can help each of us protect the planet without moving bravely into the 14th century. The destruction of the recent floods in Germany could have been lessened had the German government fulfilled their responsibility, but instead the politicians cover their failure with loud exclamations and calls for spending more money. In this article, Lomborg points out that while there can be negatives to a changing climate, there can also be positives and it is up to us to keep the challenge in perspective. I hope you enjoy the article at https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disasters-ahr-river-flood-germany-wildfire-risks-11628177742?mod=opinion_lead_pos7

Isn’t it funny that when the true cost of a program is known, it suddenly is not as attractive. For years, the failed “green” programs of Germany have been there for all to see; electricity costs that are 3x the rest of Europe, dependence on fuel from a state run by a dictator, slow growth, etc. but it never dawns on people that replicating some of those very policies in their back yard will cost them without any noticable improvement in their lives; in fact, those failed policies will end up decreasing their standard of living. Follow the link below to an article on how reality is posing a problem for the “green” agenda. Altruistic ideals are fine until they hit you in the pocketbook. https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-summit-cop26-cost-esg-carbon-11626297240?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

The link at the end of my comments will take you to a proposed “solution” from a group of university researchers who believe in global warming (or is it global climate change?). In the end, they believe that all we need do is cut our energy usage by 90%, wash less frequently, have fewer clothes, and give up much of international travel. The problems with their “solution” are many, such as for example, with less international travel, millions will be thrown out of work for in the service and hospitality industries and how will they earn a living; does the decrease in international travel mean decreased manufacturing and longer lead times with the resulting decline in the maintenance of equipment which will lead to a further decreased standard of living. They also base their projection of energy production to include nuclear power, but that source is condemned by most of the environmental movement. It is easy to “solve” a problem if one ignores the impact on real world individuals. It seems that their “solution” in the end flies in the face of all human history, in which humanity has endeavored to improve its standard of living and refused to accept failure. Perhaps their “brave new world” is based on a model of humanity that has only been dreamed of by totalitarians. https://reason.com/2021/07/02/to-stop-climate-change-americans-must-cut-energy-use-by-90-percent-live-in-640-square-feet-and-fly-only-once-every-3-years-says-study/

Those on the Left (not the Liberals, the Left) say they believe in “Science”, yet they continually demonstrate that they know little about “Science” but much about ideology. As you read the article linked below, think of what could have been achieved if the billions of Euros (or Dollars) had been spent in more productive ways; the jobs that could have been saved, the higher standard of living for those who pay the taxes and have to fund such unproductive policies. How much longer will billions in precious resources be wasted and the increasing pollution that goes along with these policies be allowed? When will people realize that the Emperor has no clothes? https://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/guest-commentary-california-and-germany-s-energy-policies-are-no-model/article_0e3276ad-87c4-5d1a-b70e-be28ec94fe5a.html

After spending many hundreds of billions of dollars world wide, wind and solar still only provide about 3% of our energy needs and with the damage to the environment caused by massive wind and solar farms, even environmentalist groups are opposing new projects. This 5 minute video provides some startling facts that cannot be ignored. I hope it provides you with some food for thought. Feel free to skip the ads at the start of the video. https://youtu.be/RqppRC37OgI

Dr. Patrick Moore PhD., was a co-founder of Greenpeace and served as President of Greenpeace Canada for nine years. Yet, in 1986, he chose to leave that organization because as he said, “it evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas”, and told a television audience, “The whole climate crisis is not only fake news, it’s fake science”. If you go to the link below, you will hear his roughly hour and a half talk which destroys numerous myths, (the polar bear population is declining, plastic waste in the Pacific the size of Texas, etc.) and provides evidence that nothing in our earths current climate is outside the range of normality for the past 10,000 years. Even if you do not watch the entire talk, it will make you ask better questions about what is reported. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3A4wrPU2jY

For all of the wonderful plans for zero emissions, the Kyoto Accords, Paris Climate Conference and politicians hot air fail to address the reality of how you put the ideals into practice. The end result may very well be a serious threat to the economies of the world as demand for energy simply outstrips the ability of “renewalables”. Where are the real plans, budgets and ideas of how to implement the goals? This article points out some of the very real challenges. https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Our crack climate Czar, John Kerry recently met with China’s Vice Premier, Han Zheng who welcomed the U.S. back into that hugely successful (?) Paris climate agreement. In his remarks, the Vice Premier said, “China welcomes the U.S. return to the Paris agreement and expects the U.S. side to uphold the agreement.”. I bet he does! China does not have to reduce emissions until at least 2030 (as they are a poor “developing” nation) and is in the process of expanding their coal-fired capacity by 300% over the prior year. They have enough coal power in development to supply all of Germany. Meanwhile, the carbon emissions of the U.S. in 2019 were the lowest since 1992 and their lowest per capita since 1950? Why? In large part due to the drilling for natural gas and our energy from shale. But, of course, the new Administration is trying to limit natural gas production. You can certainly say one thing for our trade negotiators; they do not appear to be the sharpest knives in the drawer. (Figures from WSJ, 4/20/21, pp A16)

I am not a fan of government subsidies, but I realize that in the real competitive world, there are many pressures which lead to subsidies in some start up industries, those involved in international trade, etc. Which raises the question of would you invest in a company that is breaking into a mature market but which requires a subsidy which was 48 times larger than its competition to compete? No? How about one that requires a subsidy 211 times that of its competitor to compete? That is the situation with wind and solar energy according to the Texas Public Policy Foundation. This raises several questions, such as 1) how long will all tax payers be willing to subsidize Tesla drivers and Elon Musk, 2) when the subsidies end, will the average American be able to pay the actual market price of wind and solar power, 3) could there be a better use for the subsidy monies and 4) when reality does descent on us, will those who have lead us along a prime rose path pay any price? I doubt it. This article should make you think about the real price of “free” energy. https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-blackouts-blew-in-on-the-wind-11616192622?page=1