Eco-Imperialists Impose a Biomess on Africa

By Duggan Flanakin – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Instead of cutting forests and burning dung and charcoal, shouldn’t Africa have cheap electricity?

China, India, Vietnam and other nations are using more and more oil, natural gas and coal every year to electrify and modernize their nations, create jobs, and improve their people’s health, living standards and life spans. Why in this day and age are the World Bank and other international institutions demanding widespread use of charcoal for heating and cooking in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)? Why are African countries, the United States and human rights groups tolerating these lethal policies?

During the recent 2019 “climate week,” the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change touted increased reliance on biomass – which already comprises 60% of European “renewable” energy – as a tool in fighting climate change and stabilizing Earth’s never-stable climate.

Continue reading

“DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO”… Shouldn’t we ask why first?

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

HENRY FARRELL
SCIENCE
08.02.1909:00 AM
DON’T ASK HOW TO PAY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. ASK WHO

LAST WEEK, CNN announced plans to host a climate crisis town hall with the Democratic presidential candidates on September 4. MSNBC scheduled a multiday climate change forum with the presidential hopefuls later that month.

In both venues, some version of the perpetual question will undoubtedly be raised: “How will you pay for the costs of dealing with climate change?”

Despite its pervasiveness, this is a profoundly wrongheaded line of inquiry. Asking how to pay for the impact of climate change implies that these costs are a matter of choice. The reality is that global warming will impose massive costs, regardless of whether policymakers respond or not. Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?” but instead “Who is going to pay?” and “How much?

[…]

Wired

Continue reading

Energy Poverty Kills More People Than Coal

By David Middleton – Re-Blogged From WUWT

This is sort of a sequel to Environmental Groups Claim Coal Killed 7,600 People in Europe in 2016… Can’t Name Any of the Victims.

The World Health Organization estimates that ambient (outdoor) air pollution kills (premature deaths) about 4.2 million people per year.  At least some of these nameless deaths could possibly be chalked up to coal.  Although the power sector only accounts for a fraction of the anthropogenic sources of ambient air pollution and coal is just the largest fraction of that fraction.

Continue reading

Green Energy ‘Steals’ From the Biosphere

An Opinion Piece by
Viv Forbes, BScAppGeol, FAusIMM
Scientist, mineral economist and grass farmer.

Earth has only three significant sources of energy.

First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.

Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting modern industrial societies and the vast populations dependent on them.

Continue reading

The Ethics of Climate Change

By Bob Lyman – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Calls for massive reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions ignore the impacts on the poor.

People who believe in the theory of catastrophic human-induced global warming claim that they want to “save the planet” and that this is the moral thing to do. They insist, however, that saving the planet requires stringent reductions in people’s use of fossil fuel energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They never talk about what that means to the poor. I think that, before people decide on the ethics of the debate, they need to consider what the impact would be of sharply reducing energy consumption on the wellbeing of world’s population, and especially on the poor.

Continue reading

Anthropogenic Global Warming and Its Causes

By Clyde Spencer – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Unless you have been in cryogenic suspended animation for several decades, you are aware of the extreme polarization about the role that CO2, particularly from burning fossil fuels, assertedly plays in warming the planet. I will attempt to provide a fresh perspective on the issue below.

It seems that many people think of global circulation models (GCMs) as being a virtual reality, or at least some kind of scientific ‘truth.’ What is generally unappreciated is that the GCMs are, instead, complex and convoluted working hypotheses. As such, they are a part of the Scientific Method. However, they should be subject to careful scrutiny, evaluated against reality, and modified as appropriate to conform to reality. That is the essence of the Scientific Method! Any hypothesis that does not have utility as an explanation, or have reliable predictive powers, does not achieve the purpose of scientific theories.

Continue reading