Are the climate models flawed? Possibly.
Is the science settled? No…not all scientists are singing from the same climate change hymn book.
Should the billion people who do not have access to electricity be denied the right to what we take for granted?
Is the global population increasing? Yes. Which means more people needing access to energy supplies.
Are renewables the answer in the near term? Unlikely.
An International Energy Agency (IEA) press release on 6 May 2019 was titled ‘Renewable capacity growth worldwide stalled in 2018 after two decades of strong expansion’.
This is part of IEA’s findings (emphasis is mine):
‘After nearly two decades of strong annual growth, renewables around the world added as much net capacity in 2018 as they did in 2017, an unexpected flattening of growth trends that raises concerns about meeting long-term climate goals.
‘Last year was the first time since 2001 that growth in renewable power capacity failed to increase year on year. New net capacity from solar PV, wind, hydro, bioenergy, and other renewable power sources increased by about 180 Gigawatts (GW) in 2018, the same as the previous year, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest data. That’s only around 60% of the net additions needed each year to meet long-term climate goals.
‘Renewables have a major role to play in curbing global emissions. Renewable capacity additions need to grow by over 300 GW on average each year between 2018 and 2030 to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement, according to the IEA’s Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS).
‘But the IEA’s analysis shows the world is not doing enough. Last year, energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% to a historic high of 33 Gigatonnes. Despite a growth of 7% in renewables electricity generation, emissions from the power sector grew to record levels.’
Perhaps the flatlining in renewables was an aberration.
What’s clear is that unless there’s a sudden, significant and sustained increase in new capacity from renewables, emissions from the power sector will continue to grow.
Because we’re addicted to growth AND there’s more people in the world who want what we in the West have enjoyed for the past 60 years.
Ian Goldin (Professor of globalisation and development at Oxford University) wrote in the Financial Times on 10 September 2018…
‘Cutting immigration will hobble economic growth.’
And Reuters on 24 July 2019…
‘IMF downgrades world growth, warns of ‘precarious’ 2020’.
Politicians, bankers, bureaucrats and academics need more people to spend more money to keep the growth machine in motion.
But correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought consumption uses energy…mining, manufacturing, transportation and handling.
Therefore, we increase CO2 emissions.
Yet those same officials (sprout this rubbish) say this…
‘The Reserve Bank has warned climate change is likely to cause economic shocks and threaten Australia’s financial stability unless businesses take immediate stock of the risks.’
The Sydney Morning Herald
12 March 2019
Personally, I would have thought putting interest rates so low — to encourage households to borrow to the eyeballs to boost the GDP numbers — would cause economic shocks and threaten Australia’s financial stability.
Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions
Let’s see if we’ve got this straight.
On one hand, we must do everything humanly possible — borrow money we can’t afford, drop rates into the negative, print money, discourage savings — to increase global consumption.
And at the same time…reduce CO2 emissions. You gotta love how they can speak out both sides of their mouth.
The only genuine way to reduce CO2 emissions is a topic I’ve covered in The Gowdie Letter.
This is an edited extract…
Delusion creates the illusion.
It was Adolf Hitler who said…
‘What luck for rulers that men do not think’
Those who control an agenda are well aware of this truth.
When it comes to thinking, people are inherently lazy. It’s far easier to go with the flow. Parroting whatever is the popular view of the day.
Social media has spread the virus of ‘group think’ to all corners of the world.
Those who dare to question the adopted view of group think, are neatly pigeon holed with a label ending in ‘ist’.
Earth Hour is a prime example of ‘group think’. According to earthhour.org.au…
‘The fight for our planet’s future is on!
‘Australia is home to some of the world’s most iconic and breathtaking natural landscapes and wildlife. But just like many of the natural wonders across our blue-green planet, we’re facing massive threats to our biodiversity due to climate change.
‘That’s why millions of people in over 180 countries are switching off their lights for Earth Hour as a symbolic gesture to show the need for stronger climate action.’
Turn off the lights for an hour and get that warm and fuzzy feeling. What a croc of the proverbial.
After the hour is up, we go back to turning on the air con or heater, hopping on a plane, driving cars, cutting down trees, breeding more livestock, powering up our electric cars, building factories, watching TV.
We pretend we’re concerned about the environment…because to do otherwise you risk being labelled a ‘denialist’.
If we are serious about cutting CO2 emissions, the solution is pretty simple.
Start conserving money. Stop spending. Make do with what we have for much longer.
And, reduce population numbers.
The following chart shows the dramatic increase in CO2 emissions since 1950.
Is it a coincidence the increase in emissions has happened at precisely the same time as a post-Second World War population increase (baby boom) and the rapid expansion in credit (to buy things we don’t need with money we don’t have)?
Source: Value Walk
The global population, credit growth and emissions charts all have the same trajectory.
The real solution to climate change is for a lesser number of people to spend less.
Reduce population numbers and restrict access to credit.
The subsequent reduction in demand would result in factories (producing all sorts of things) closing doors.
Emissions would decrease…the Paris targets would be achieved easily.
Politicians would NEVER tell us to reduce the birth rate, lower the immigration intake and holster the credit card.
This course of action does not fit the ‘growth, growth and more growth’ agenda we’re repeatedly told is good for us.
Instead, we’re forced into paying for expensive ‘solutions’ (which includes all the hangers-on) that fail to make one iota of difference to the problem.
The solution is pretty clear, if you want to shut down the factories in China, cutback on buying things…especially with borrowed money.
That’s a hard truth we’ll never hear from the political class or the RBA.
However, all truths are eventually revealed…just not in the way we expect.
When the next global credit crisis hits and hits hard, debt-funded consumerism will be stopped in its tracks.
A couple of things will happen.
China’s export-dependent economy will shrink…factories will be mothballed.
And, our immigration intake will slow to a trickle. The political pressure to find work for the long list of unemployed Aussies will be too great to bear. The chant of ‘we don’t want foreigners to take our jobs’ will be deafening.
The cost of genuine action on climate change is going to be far greater than anyone expects.
If there’s a small mercy to the hardship that confronts us in the near future, it’s that households will not be additionally burdened by a policy of higher taxes and the costs for the reckless pursuit of pointless action on climate change.
The RBA’s dire warning on ‘economic shock and financial instability’ is deadly accurate. But it won’t be from climate change.
While a billion people in the world do not have electricity and thousands of Australian households — due to rising power bills — are forced to disconnect from the grid…some are not doing it quite as tough.
‘Renowned climate change campaigner Al Gore came to Australia’s coal capital on taxpayer money and lunched with Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk today.’
ABC News 7 June 2019
How much of my (and my fellow Queenslanders) money was wasted (sorry, spent) on this indulgence?
‘Taxpayers will fork out more than $320,000 for the Climate Week conference, where form US vice president Al Gore will “communicate the urgency of the climate crisis”.’
2GB 4 June 2019
According to Huffington Post, former VP Gore has done very nicely from being the self-appointed Messiah of the climate change cult…
‘The former vice president ― who boasted a relatively modest net worth of $1.7 million, held mostly in family farm assets, when he ran for president in 2000 ― has become a media mogul and financial titan over the past decade, with a personal fortune valued at upward of $200 million.’
But that’s the way all religious cults work — Scientology, the Orange People et al…the riches flow to the founders while the devotees make all the sacrifices.
And in true cult leader style…
‘In a move that critics may cite as his own inconvenient truth, former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a house in secluded Montecito to their real estate holdings.
‘The couple spent $8,875,000 on a gated ocean-view villa on 1 1/2 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, according to real estate sources familiar with the deal. The Italian-style house has high ceilings with beams in the public rooms, a family room, a wine cellar, terraces, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms in more than 6,500 square feet of living space.’
LA Times 8 May 2010
And you wonder why I’m a sceptic.
Editor, The Rum Rebellion
PS: Free Report – Greg Canavan’s Top Two ASX Gold Stocks for 2019. Download Now!