Category: Econut O’ The Day

U.N. Climate Conference Rejects EU Demands to Commit to Fossil Fuel Phase-Out

(AFP) — Nations clinched a deal at the UN’s COP30 climate summit in the Amazon Saturday without a roadmap for phasing out fossil fuels as demanded by the European Union and other countries.

Nearly 200 countries approved the deal by consensus after two weeks of fraught negotiations in the Brazilian city of Belem, with the notable absence of the United States as President Donald Trump shunned the event.

Applause rang out in the plenary session after COP30 president and Brazilian diplomat Andre Correa do Lago slammed a gavel signalling its approval.

The EU and other nations had pushed for a deal that would call for a “roadmap” to phase out fossil fuels, but the words do not appear in the text.

Instead, the agreement calls on countries to “voluntarily” accelerate their climate action and recalls the consensus reached at COP28 in Dubai. That 2023 deal called for the world to transition away from fossil fuels.

The EU, which had warned that the summit could end without a deal if fossil fuels were not addressed, accepted the watered-down language.

“We’re not going to hide the fact that we would have preferred to have more, to have more ambition on everything,” EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told reporters.

Continue reading “”

Reality Caught Up to ‘Climate Change.’

For decades, the monolithic and sacrosanct international climate change hierarchy went unquestioned.

Western nations in particular spent trillions of dollars over the past half-century to subsidize expensive but erratic wind and solar energy while demonizing carbon fuels as toxic threats to the planet.

Like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dogma, climate change orthodoxy was embedded into every aspect of Western culture, from the corporate boardroom to the university campus.

Question whether man-made global warming was truly responsible for increased temperatures rather than natural, often centuries-long cycles of heating and cooling of the planet, and one was labeled a climate crank.

Everything from declining fertility to forest fires was ridiculously attributed to climate change.

But the causes of both demographic crises and charred landscapes were more likely the result of new affluent lifestyles that saw child-rearing as too expensive and time-consuming, and misguided forest policies or underfunded firefighting.

Yet reality has caught up with the near-religious climate change cult.

One, the left-wing tech billionaires—exemplified by former climate change zealot Bill Gates—have become apostates of the green movement. Now they do not warn of a planet threatened by too much man-made heat but rather by too little man-made kilowattage.

They believe artificial intelligence will prove as transformative as the Industrial Revolution. But to win the AI revolution will require vast increases in electricity production, of up to a staggering 100 gigawatts a year of additional capacity.

Such enormous demand—to build the equivalent of a hundred huge power plants per year—is far beyond the ability of “renewables” alone.

Instead, the only solution is an “all of the above” strategy of building more nuclear, natural gas, clean-coal, wind, and solar generation plants.

Two, ascendant China’s massive arms buildup and its bullying Belt and Road imperialism have finally put international “climate accords” into question.

Even the environmentalist King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden has recently let it slip that he is troubled by why Europe sandbagged its own economy by shutting down its formerly efficient nuclear and fossil fuel plants. He reminded the world that the European Union nations contribute only six percent of the planet’s carbon emissions.

The West finally realizes that a cynical China has been playing it for years by funding green propaganda abroad.

Continue reading “”

Why No One Cares About the Climate Conference.

Suppose they held an international summit and nobody came? The Brazilian organizers of the annual United Nations climate conference are close to finding out. They pulled out all the stops, including bulldozing tens of thousands of acres of rainforest to clear a new highway to the host city, Belém. International business leaders flocked to earlier summits, and 150 heads of government attended the one in Dubai two years ago. The moguls are steering clear of Brazil, though, and only 53 national leaders are making the trek (a shame, considering all those temporarily converted “love motels“).

The sudden bursting of the climate-alarmism bubble is nearly as shocking as the global shrug that has accompanied it. Not so long ago, the climate movement was widely believed to be the most urgent cause of our time. Global do-gooders flew around the world urging others to cut transportation-related greenhouse gases, agencies and bureaucracies developed plans to slash carbon emissions, and C-suites lobbied their governments for green targets and subsidies. Now Germany is trying to avoid hosting next year’s climate gabfest.

This allegedly existential threat seems to have vanished with little notice, and observers are fumbling for an explanation. Many point an accusing finger at Donald Trump, but he is far from the only bubble-burster. Xi Jinping and the emerging artificial intelligence industry have also forced decision-makers to reconsider the vast amounts of energy and attention poured into the climate crusade.

Continue reading “”

Surprised By Leftwing Radical Rhetoric? Look Closer at the Climate Movement

Millions of Americans were horrified when Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood. Then came an even bigger shock: large numbers of people celebrated his death and danced on his grave.

Sickening as it is, this shouldn’t surprise anyone. The left has long harbored—or at least tolerated—an anti-human streak, and nowhere is it more visible than in its radical environmental wing.

Leftwing misanthropy rears its ugly head when it comes to issues like abortion, euthanasia, and criticizing the traditional family. But radical environmentalism carries the same core belief: human beings are the problem. If we just had fewer human beings doing less, the idea goes, the world would be a better place.

Radical environmentalists preach the gospel of demographic decline, arguing that having fewer children cuts carbon more than a lifetime of bike riding and composting. Some environmentalists made the not-so-subtle point that thanks to the death and lockdowns of COVID-19, “nature is healing.” One recent study found that environmental activists, consumed by their mission, often tend to “manipulate and deceive others” and demonstrate “callousness” and “lack of empathy.” When saving the planet is the goal, who has time for people’s feelings?

The logic is clear: humans are the problem. Not the behavior of industry or the pace of innovation—but people themselves.

Of course, that doesn’t mean environmental activists have their fingers on a trigger. Thinking the world would be better off with fewer people doesn’t make one a killer. But a movement that treats human beings as the enemy breeds a mindset where life itself can be dismissed, devalued, or even cheered when lost.

How do you get so many people celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk? You get it in a movement that finds an environmental bright side to a deadly pandemic, that sees people as problems to be overcome, and that holds up abortion as a win for the earth. To too many, life becomes unwelcome when, in their opinion, that life starts causing more harm than good.

The result of this line of thinking brought to its logical conclusion is the despicable display recently put on by prominent University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Mann.

Despite being one of the most prominent climate “experts” with a perch in the lofty heights of the Ivy League, Mann callously wrote after Kirk’s assassination that “the white on white violence has gotten out of hand” and retweeted a post calling Kirk “the head of Trump’s Hitler Youth.”

Mann has long blurred the line between science and politics. In fact, his fierce partisanship has actually been a significant obstacle to common-sense bipartisan action. Yet few conservatives noticed his tirades because most ignore the climate issue entirely. It took Mann mocking the murder of a free speech activist for the general public to finally wake up to his radicalism.

Yet Mann isn’t just morally reckless; he’s factually wrong. A review of 1,500 climate policies found that his preferred approach of top-down government regulation fails, while free market solutions actually reduce carbon emissions. President Trump’s pro-energy policies and embrace of cleaner natural gas helped cut carbon emissions to the lowest level in 25 years in his first term. President Trump is also laser-focused on holding China accountable for its economic practices. China is the world’s foremost polluter, yet this appears to be an “inconvenient truth” for environmentalists on the Left.

Sadly, the activists on the environmental left seem immune to the facts. Or, maybe, they just haven’t heard them.

Radical environmentalists like Michael Mann are organizing, teaching, and shaping the next generation in ways that are anti-human, anti-freedom, and anti-Western. Thus far, they’ve done so unopposed. But conservatives can’t continue to cede this battlefield.

If we want to effectively combat leftwing misanthropy, we must engage in the climate debate—and we must offer a hopeful counterpoint to the left’s dark narratives, wherever they take hold.

No matter what many of the left seem to believe, people aren’t the problem. In fact, if Charlie Kirk’s life proved anything, it’s that even one person can change the world for the better.

Chris Johnson is President and Co-Founder of the American Energy Leadership Institute, a conservative energy policy research and advocacy organization working to ensure America leads and dominates the 21st century.

“Global Warming” fraudulent pseudoscience debunked.

Good News (If You Like Freezing)! Antarctica Sees More Snowfall, Record Low Temps!

The Germany-base European Institute For Climate And Energy (EIKE) has issued its latest video featuring Antarctica. Good news! The alleged catastrophic warming remains a myth there.

It’s as cold as it ever was. 

Lots of other publications showing Antarctic cooling. See my side bar for all posts about Antarctica. 

Antarctica experienced record low temperatures in late 2023, particularly during late winter (July-August). These extreme cold events were observed across a wide area, impacting both East and West Antarctica, including the Ross Ice Shelf and the Antarctic Peninsula, according to The Watchers here.

The irony just couldn’t be greater, as all we hear in the fake media are stories about big icebergs breaking off somewhere, and everyone being (mis)led to believe the South Pole is melting when clearly as a whole it is not.

The Watchers’ story cites a peer reviewed study “Extreme Antarctic Cold of Late Winter 2023” by Tomanek et al published in Springer Nature.

Natural chaotic climate and weather change

According to The Watchers: “These atmospheric patterns caused severe and persistent cold, influencing weather systems and temperature variations across the continent. The study also found that southerly flows from the continent and calm air conditions contributed to these cold spells.”

Supply of stations disrupted by cold

The study’s  abstract states that the cold temperatures were measured across a broad area and hindered aircraft operations into McMurdo Station and Phoenix Airfield. When temperatures fall below −50°C, flight operations become risky because of hydraulic fluids and fuel can turn into gel onboard aircraft.

How cold was it? “Antarctica as a whole experienced dramatic drops in temperature,” reports The Watchers. “This extreme cold coincided with record-breaking high temperatures in South America, particularly in Chile where temperatures reached -40 ℃.”

“Watermelon”  = ‘Green’ on the outside, Red on the inside.

Green group with ties to Chinese Communist Party part of network influencing U.S. policy.

A national-security watchdog group is asking members of Congress to take a closer look at an energy transition advocacy nonprofit that has ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). According to State Armor, the watchdog group, nonprofits are coordinating with U.S. climate groups to influence climate policy, advance the interests of the CCP and undermine U.S. national security.

A new report by State Armor argues that the CCP is co-opting the American progressive climate change lobby to advance a transition away from fossil fuels. The alternative technologies being pushed by this lobby, according to the report, create significant economic and geopolitical advantages by undermining U.S. energy dominance and leaving it dependent on Chinese supply chains for its energy production.

“It creates a dependence on our side and deprives us of a natural strength, which is our energy independence that comes from other resources,” Michael Lucci, CEO of State Armor, told Just the News. State Armor is a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for state solutions to global security threats.

Continue reading “”

Spain experienced a nationwide power outage one week after reaching 100% “green” energy.

Across all of Portugal and Spain, people were left without power or cell service of any kind. The nations literally went dark.

Tens of millions of people had to resort to old handheld radios to figure out what was even happening. It could have been an alien invasion for all they knew!

From El Pais:

The outage suddenly set Spain back to the 19th century. Traffic lights out of service, traffic jams forming across the country, pedestrians wandering around cities without public transportation, desperate families trying to communicate with their loved ones, passengers left stranded without trains or flights, canceled medical appointments, rescues underway in subway stations and elevators, lines forming outside small shops due to supermarket closures…

I wonder what could have caused this?

For no reason at all, here’s a video of Spaniards celebrating the destruction of a nuclear power plant three years ago.

CBS Environmental Journo Slams Trump EPA: We Have ‘Less Than 10 Years’ to Save Planet.

During the “By the Way” segment on Friday’s CBS Mornings Plus, CBS environmental correspondent David Schechter decried the Trump Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin by giving away the game on the climate alarmists by reupping a line that’s been deployed for at least five decades, which is we have “less than ten years” to save Earth from climate change.

Co-host Adriana Diaz twice teased his appearance and spelled doom about what deregulation at the EPA would mean, ominously wondering “what” the “big changes at the EPA” “could cost you” as the “administration…mak[es] good on the President’s campaign promise to roll back climate protections.”

 

With the liberal media, any and all regulations are nearly always seen as a benefit and for our own good, not a hassle.

“[O]ne of the things the EPA will now, ‘reconsider’ is what its press release calls a burdensome greenhouse gas reporting program where thousands of companies have to submit their emissions levels. Zeldin said the agency would try to undo a total of 31 environmental regulations from rules governing wastewater to emission standards. The Trump administration has also…revealed plans to shut down the EPA’s Environmental Justice Division,” she added.

Schechter came out swinging with the apocalyptic analysis that Zeldin has changed “the way we interface with the environment” as the EPA has decided it has “nothing” to do with “the environment or ensuring “we have clean air and…clean water.”

He continued with the claim Zeldin doesn’t want to “talk about the environment and why we need to keep it clean and why climate change has become such an existential threat with increased floods and fires and droughts and how the EPA has a role in trying to make sure that we control that and contain that.”

Moments later, he dropped the tiresome claim about having less than a decade or we’re goners:

I think the biggest risk is that we have a small window to deal with climate change, really. It’s getting smaller and smaller, less than 10 years, to sort of level out and reduce our emissions and we had and have currently a lot of rules that deal with that. To throw those all out would undo a lot of progress that’s been made to try to reach these new standards for our country and for the world. And we will lose our opportunity to really get ahead of this problem or even stay current with the problem.

Co-host Tony Dokoupil next summarized Zeldin’s view of the EPA as “if companies save money by not having to report a bunch of things that are a waste of time, they can take that saved money and make the energy process cleaner.”

Schechter was obviously not having it because, you can’t trust non-governmental parties to behave (click “expand”):

SCHECHTER: I don’t know if, I guess if that’s your reading of that claim, I think that’s an interesting way to look at it. You know, companies, corporations, many of them do, do the right thing and do spend a lot of time on their environmental issues and reporting and things like that, but, you know, the government’s job is to set a level playing field, if that’s how you view the government’s job, to set a level playing field with regulations so that everyone is following the same rules. Some companies do get in trouble when they get ahead of their competitors and they have rules that are maybe more stringent than what their competitors have. And then the market kind of catches up to them and they take a lot of criticism for being too far ahead of the pack. So, you know, having stoplights and roads and, you know, rules of the road, is what keeps everybody sort of moving in the same direction. That’s the idea of the EPA. That’s the power of the EPA. And to say we care about the earth and we care about clean water, that’s what we’re going to do, is one thing, but to look at what they did and want to cut 31 important regulations is really what you should be looking at.

DOKOUPIL: It’s interesting. Yeah, but this is the claim from the EPA press release. Hundreds of millions of dollars saved could better be used, “to improve and upgrade environmental controls to have a noticeable impact and improvement on the environment.” We’ll see what happens.

DIAZ: Yeah.

SCHECHTER: Yeah.

DIAZ: And if companies take it upon themselves to try to make that environmental improvement without the regulations.

This Friday segment actually capped three days of rage at CBS.

Rolling back to Thursday, senior White House and campaign correspondent Ed O’Keefe appeared on both CBS Mornings and the Plus editions to say the EPA will now be “rolling back…regulations” that said “greenhouse gasses are bad for public health[.]”

And, on Tuesday, CBS Evening News co-anchor Maurice DuBois said the agency was doing away with red tape “aimed at protecting public health and fighting climate change.”

Co-anchor John Dickerson commiserated with former Obama EPA official Matthew Tejada a half-hour later on CBS Evening Plus.

Tejada went full doomsday and fearmongerer by saying Zeldin’s announcement was “taking us back to the 1960s, from before the times when we had regulations that actually cleaned up our water, protect people from across our country, from cancer-causing agents in our air, actually cleaning up legacy contamination sites that people had been living on top of for generations.”

 

 

Tejada further vented the Trump administration will “tak[e] us back to that time when we didn’t have regulation” in which Americans won’t be “healthier” as they’re purposefully “allowing polluting industries” to “hav[e] absolutely unfettered ability to pour their pollution into our communities[.]”

Always a pompous partisan, Dickerson invited Tejada to go further (click “expand”):

DICKERSON: And Matthew, one of the announcements today said the agency is, quote, “reconsidering the 2009 engagement finding.” Help us understand what that means.

TEJADA: Yeah, that was the endangerment finding. That was the finding that basically unlocked the authorities of the Environmental Protection Agency and our federal government to start combating climate change. We have seen repeatedly how our climate is changing on a regular basis and having devastating consequences, not just in our country, but across the world, how it is causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damages every single year. They’re taking us back to not even square one, to the one decision that allowed us to start to make the slightest progress that was then supercharged during the last administration through the Inflation Reduction Act, another regulatory progress that we made recently. It is taking us back in time, just like all these other decisions are taking us way back to an era when we were suffering from pollution in every part of this country.

DICKERSON: And let me ask you now, finally, Matthew, about the environmental justice offices. Remind us about — define environmental justice for us and what you think will now happen as a result of these policies.

TEJADA: So environmental justice has worked for decades to make sure that every part of our country, especially those parts of our country that have not had the power to keep pollution out of their community and to bring in the positives of a clean environment, of green space, of natural resources. Those are black and brown communities. Those are indigenous communities. Those are low-income white communities. Those communities that have not had a power to actually be protected from environmental pollution. The environmental justice program at EPA worked every single day to make sure that those communities felt heard by their government and to bring their voices back into government to make it respond and serve those people too. And they are gutting that program today as we speak.

To see the relevant CBS transcripts, click here (for March 12’s CBS Evening News Plus) and here (for March 14’s CBS Mornings Plus).