Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #298

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

Frigid Weather: Since Christmas North America, east of the Rockies, has been very cold. In addition, the Atlantic Seaboard experienced an intense Nor’easter that brought rain, ice, and snow from Georgia to New England. Climate change alarmists are attempting to blame the cold on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. How CO2 may cause a cooling of the earth is not clearly established in physical theory. Government funded entities, such as NOAA, that rely on numerical models, did not predict the cold more than a few days in advance. Yet, a private entity, WeatherBELL Analytics, was warning of a cold year-end as early as October.

Continue reading

Mythical Subsidies

By Michel de Rougemont – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com

Following the decarbonisation goals set forth in the Paris climate agreement of December 2015, appeals are made to suppress energy subsidies linked to the use of fossil fuels, and to increase consumption taxes massively as an incentive to burn less of them.

According to « experts » of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in a report published last December[1], energy is the beneficiary of subsidies amounting to $4’900 billion in 2013, or 6.5% of the global GDP. On its part, the International Energy Agency (EIA)[2] estimates them at $532 billion for that same year? The not so small 920% difference stems from considerations given to so-called negative externalities associated with the use of energy.

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