Advertisements

STARK Reminder That Climate Bedwetters Are Mere Groupthink Puppets To The Hypocritical Rants Of Their Malthusian Leaders

Greenpeace Filling Up on Fossil Fuels

Greenpeace Filling Up on Fossil Fuels

GREENPEACE is a strident campaigner against big oil, especially against BP. Why isn’t the Rainbow Warrior running on solar power or wind power?

Kayaktivists protesting against oil exploration in kayaks made of oil

KAYAKTIVISTS protesting against oil exploration using kayaks made from oil. The paddles they use are plastic. The personal flotation devices heavily dependent on synthetic material derived from petroleum. The leader of the protest garbed in synthetic clothing with a petroleum-based megaphone in hand.

Nuff said.

•••

UPDATE

This graphic says it all…

H/t  

•••

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

KEEPING It In The Ground…

Cobalt Mining + Apple.jpg

Trucks at the Murrin Murrin nickel-cobalt mining joint venture in Western Australia | The Australian

THE next time you are met with the fashionable climate hashtag #keepitintheground by a holier-than-thou climate warrior, calmly remind them that their iPhone, iPad and electric car is not as “sustainable” as they might have hoped for and definitely doesn’t run on a planet-friendly diet of tofu and mung beans.

THEN advise them to direct their misinformed, groupthink-enabled rage at their silicone valley eco-icons – Elon Musk and Apple et al – who are digging gigantic holes in the ground too. Oh, and hiring child miners aged 4 who are living a hell on earth in the Congo mining for their Cobalt…

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

via The Australian

Apple fires up fight for cobalt

  • The Times

Apple is seeking to buy cobalt directly from mining companies amid a looming shortage of the metal, a key ingredient for the lithium-ion batteries in its iPhones and iPads.

Fearful that the boom in electric cars might put pressure on supplies, the Californian technology giant has been in discussions to secure contracts for “several thousand metric tons” of cobalt each year for at least five years, according to Bloomberg.

While smartphones use an estimated ten grams of refined cobalt, a typical electric car battery uses five to ten kilograms.

If sales of electric vehicles hit a forecast of 30 million by 2030, it will drive further explosive growth in cobalt demand, according to research for Glencore, the mining company, by CRU, a commodities analyst. It forecasts a “material” impact from demand for electric cars by as early as 2020, with an extra 24,000 tonnes needed as early as 2020, compared with about 110,000 tonnes mined globally in 2017 and an additional 314,000 tonnes by 2030.

If Apple secures its own cobalt contracts, rather than leaving it to companies that supply its batteries, it could find itself in fierce competition with carmakers for the metal.

The talks, understood to have begun more than a year ago, come after a tripling in the price of cobalt in the past 18 months, as carmakers jump into the fully electric or hybrid power business, following the likes of Toyota and Tesla. Countries including Britain and France have said that they will ban the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2040.

Apple declined to comment on the talks. However, Ivan Glasenberg, chief executive of Glencore, the world’s biggest cobalt producer, said in December that the iPhone maker was among the companies it was talking to about cobalt, along with Tesla and Volkswagen.

Overnight (AEDT) Mr Glasenberg said that no deal had been signed. “We don’t have any long-term contracts with Apple; we haven’t signed anything with Apple.”

He added: “We have seen the investments that motor car companies are making in electric vehicles and they will need battery supply, so the demand for electric vehicles is strong. It will require a lot of cobalt and we all know the geological scarcity of cobalt.”

Mr Glasenberg noted that supply was “relatively constrained”, as cobalt could not be mined like lithium, but was a by-product mainly of copper and nickel.

There are also questions about the stability of supply in the Democratic Republic of Congo after a vote last month by its parliament to raise royalties on mining. The change is designed to ensure that the country gets a bigger share of the money paid for its commodities, but it will raise costs for producers.

Mining companies are lobbying against the change, which Mr Glasenberg said would lead to under-investment. “Can the world produce as much cobalt (as) it’s going to need? … What happens in the DRC is going to be very important going forward,” he said.

Apple’s move to secure its own supplies of cobalt comes amid a global drive to safeguard supplies of crucial metals used in electronics while reducing dependence on the DRC, which supplies two thirds of the world’s cobalt but has been criticised for human rights abuses, including using child labour.

Cobalt miners in the Congo. Pic: Reuters
Cobalt miners in the Congo. Pic: Reuters

In response to criticism from human rights groups, Apple now uses only cobalt refined and smelted in China, Belgium and Finland. It will accept metal from the DRC only if it comes from mines that can prove they provide adequate health and safety protections and safeguards against child labour.

Michael Giblin, mining analyst at S & P Global Market Intelligence, said that end-users of cobalt were already looking for alternatives to the metal.

“Due to the rapid increase in the cobalt price over the last year, plus the fact that the majority of cobalt will be sourced from areas with political and social instability, battery technology is being continually evolved to reduce the reliance on cobalt.

“Conventional battery chemistries are being modified to reduce the cobalt content by increasing content of other metals such as nickel or manganese.”

With Emily Gosden

The Times

Apple fires up fight for cobalt | The Australian

•••

Related :

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ!

Donate with PayPal

•••


DRACONIAN Climate Change Policies Making World Hunger Worse

World Hunger UN Climate policy

Climate policies are diverting resources from measures that directly reduce hunger, which according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation is on the rise. | The Australian

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.

THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.

MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.

Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian

*

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse

BJORN LOMBORG // @BjornLomborg via The Australian :

For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.

Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.

The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.

But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”

It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.

The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.

A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.

What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.

Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.

And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.

In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.

In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.

Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.

There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.

Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.

And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.

We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

(Climatism bolds added)

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse | The Australian

•••

Related :

UN Related :

 


ENTIRE German village demolished to make way for coal mining

DEAR German “Greens”, who played a major government and activist role in phasing out (CO2-free) nuclear energy, via Fukushima hysteria, and implementing the economic and environmental disastrous #Energiewende, I repeat to you again – “careful what you wish for”!

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

A 19th century church in Germany was demolished this week to make way for coal mining.

St Lambertus Cathedral – a church known by locals as Immerather Dom – in Immerath, a tiny farming village northwest of Cologne, was razed to the ground on Tuesday.

The double-spired church, thought to have been built between 1880 and 1890, was torn down in the latest step in energy company RWE’s demolition of the entire village in a bid to expand its access to the region’s lignite supply.

St Lambertus Church (pictured) was torn down by RWE Power to make way for coal mines despite protests from Greenpeace

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5262641/German-cathedral-torn-make-way-coal-mining.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Perhaps instead of lecturing Donald Trump, our climate conscious MPs should be complaining to Mrs Merkel.

View original post


Leo Hitches A Ride Again!

“Act On Climate” “Climate Action” “Science Says So” “Climate March” “Moral Issue Of Our Time” blah blah blah 🤦‍♂️

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

ScreenHunter_1783 Jan. 08 18.01

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5232313/Leonardo-DiCaprio-43-Camila-Morrone-20-arrive-LA.html

Top hypocrite Leo’s been at it again, flying back to LA by private jet from his Aspen skiing holiday. That should really help fight global warming!

Air miles: Environmentalist

The usual excuse was given:

But if he was truly serious, he would be giving his buddies an earful about using such carbon spewing transport, and not encouraging their behaviour.

And if he was really serious, there is always the bus!

image

https://www.rome2rio.com/s/Los-Angeles/Aspen

View original post


How Green Delegates Keep Warm In Bonn

“OUR old friend fossil fuels” keeping UN “Save The Planet” delegates warm and toasty in Bonn!

Another one for the “you can’t make this stuff up” file! Lol.

https://youtu.be/hW2B_GT3b1E

7D4979F0-231D-46FF-BD8D-1A0514ED9ECD

 

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

If you’re wondering how they’re keeping warm at the Bonn Climate Conference, Sheila Gunn Reid of Rebel News has been investigating!

View original post


TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature

Germany_s Energiewende is destroying nature

“The destruction of nature by the land-hungry wind and biogas industries is the opposite of what the environmental movement used to fight for: just as the communists made workers unfree and poor, the Greens have destroyed our landscapes and killed millions of birds and bats.” Michael Miersch, German Wildlife Foundation

 

WIKIPEDIA describes Germany’s “Energiewende” (German for energy transition) as the following:

The Energiewende is the transition by Germany to a low carbon, environmentally sound, reliable, and affordable energy supply. The new system will rely heavily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy demand management. 
*
BASIC research into each of the virtues ascribed by Energiewende shows that not one of the fundamental ‘energy transition’ goals have been realised. In fact, the opposite in all cases has been stunningly achieved:
*
“LOW CARBON”
Online Swiss daily, Basler Zeitung cites an “expert team” by McKinsey consulting group, which not long ago found that the German energy policy has fallen far short of its aims: Emissions of climate-harmful carbon dioxide are not going down, but rather are increasing, as is power consumption even though it was supposed to go down because of efficiency measures.”
IF the justification for taxpayer subsidies that will top €1 TRILLION was cutting CO2 emissions, the report card for 2016 on Germany’s Energiewende is a massive FAIL!

EXCLUSIVE: German Emissions Increase in 2016 Due to Nuclear Plant Closure — Environmental Progress

German emissions increased in 2016 for a second year in a row as a result of the country closing one of its nuclear plants and replacing it with coal and natural gas, a new Environmental Progress analysis finds.

German emissions would have declined had it not closed a nuclear plant and replaced it with coal and natural gas. 

Not only did new solar and wind not make up for the lost nuclear, the percentage of time during 2016 that solar and wind produced electricity declined dramatically

Germany added a whopping 10 percent more wind turbine capacity and 2.5 percent more solar panel capacity between 2015 and 2016, but generated less than one percent more electricity from wind and generated one percent less electricity from solar.

The reason is because Germany had significantly less sunshine and wind in 2016 than 2015.

EXCLUSIVE: German Emissions Increase in 2016 Due to Nuclear Plant Closure — Environmental Progress

(See also: Numbers don’t lie: Germany’s Energiewende has had zero impact on emissions – at best | Watts Up With That?)
*
“RELIABLE”
THE mad obsession with unreliable-energy by global warming theory-obsessed politicians has led to an unprecedented power crisis in Australia too. Problems began in the 60% unreliable-energy, utopian state of South Australia, with three major blackouts last summer (one of them statewide), regular load-shedding and now officially the highest power prices in the world. And, so it goes in Germany: the attempt to run on sunshine and breezes has led to skyrocketing power prices, energy poverty and a grid on the brink of collapse. NoTricksZone on the German debacle:

Today the task has become a challenging balancing act. According to Manager Magazin, facility manager Volker Weinreich says “we have to intervene more often than ever to keep the power grid stable. We are getting closer and closer to the limit.”

The reason for the grid instability: the growing amount of erratic renewable energy being fed in, foremost wind and sun. Manager Magazin writes that there are always four workers monitoring the frequency at the Tennet control center, just outside Hannover, making sure that it stays near 50 Hz. Too much instability would mean a the “worst imaginable disaster: grid collapse and blackout“.

Weinreich describes how on stormy days wind parks are forced to shut down to keep the grid from frying. And the more wind turbines that come online, the more often wind parks need to be shut down. This makes them even more inefficient.

Not only do wind and solar feed in their power on a part-time basis, but now so do the conventional power plants as well — all according to the whims of the weather. An d too often they run at levels well below peak efficiency. The costs of all the inefficiencies get passed on to the consumers. Tens of thousands have been forced into “energy poverty”.

1400 interventions
Weinreich reports that the grid is so unstable that in 2015 it was necessary for Tennet to intervene some 1400 times. In the old conventional power days, it used to be only “a few times a year“.

Germany’s Energiewende Nightmare: Grid Collapse Looms Due to Erratic Wind & Solar – STOP THESE THINGS

*
“AFFORDABLE ENERGY SUPPLY”
Germany’s Energiewende has only succeeded in massively elevating Germany’s consumer power prices, making its power almost twice as expensive as power in neighboring France, which relies heavily on nuclear. While France’s power is half the cost, the country also emits far less CO2 from electricity production.
europe-power-prices-2
THE correlation between skyrocketing power prices and high roll-outs of unreliable-energy by country is stark:

electricitypriceseuropeRE per capita EUrstudioscreensnapz027

Data Source | Watts Up With That?

Fuel-Poverty Related : 

*

“ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND”

Via GWPF:

GERMANY’S green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks.

Michael Miersch from the Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung recently gave a talk in the House of Lords about renewable energy’s devastating impact on wildlife and the environment in Germany and other parts of the world. 

About the author Michael Miersch is director of Deutsche Wildtier Stiftung (German Wildlife Foundation), a non-profit organisation devoted the protection of wildlife in Gemany. He is a professional journalist who worked for more than three decades for national newpapers, magazines and TV-stations, amongst others Die Welt, Die Zeit and WDR (public TV). He has written several books about nature, science and politics, some of which have become bestsellers. This paper is based on a speech given on 24 October 2017 in the House of Lords.

(Climatism bolds and selected highlights from report)

Are Wind Power and Biofuels Really Green? How Germany’s ‘Energy Transition’ is destroying wildlife and forests Michael Miersch

It is one hundred years since the Russian Revolution, known officially in communist countries as ‘The Great Socialist October Revolution’. The one time I visited East Germany, a friend there said, ‘the name contains four lies’.

First, it wasn’t great. It was a coup, led by Leon Trotsky, that took place at night, so that most inhabitants of St Petersburg didn’t even notice.

Second, it wasn’t socialist, at least not in the sense that it brought freedom and prosperity to the working class.

Third, it wasn’t a revolution, but instead – as I said – a night-time coup by an armed militia, which occupied strategically important buildings in St Petersburg. And fourth, it didn’t happen in October but, according to the Gregorian calendar, in November.

Today, whenever I hear the phrase ‘green energy’, I think of this old joke. In Germany, electricity from wind power and biogas is called ‘eco-power’, ‘bio-power’ or even ‘natural electricity’. These names contain many lies too, and I would like to tell you about them.

First though, there is another parallel between green energy and the Russian Revolution. The communists promised the workers everything and gave them nothing. Anyone who was not ideologically blind could see that the workers in western capitalist countries were much better off than their counterparts in communist eastern Europe. The German Green Party was founded in 1980. The Greens promised to save nature. They wanted to be the protectors of forests, birds and rivers. But their policies have led to the most widespread destruction of nature in Germany since the Second World War. No industry consumes as much land as the generation of ‘natural electricity’.

Without the pressure from the Greens and their friends in the environmental NGOs, the German governments of chancellors Helmut Kohl, Gerhard Schröder and Angela Merkel would not have pushed the expansion of wind power, bioenergy and solar energy as much as they did. As our former Minister of Agriculture from the Green Party, Renate Künast, once said: ‘Farmers will be the oil barons of the future!’ She and her party pushed for massive subsidies for growing energy crops. The destruction of nature by the land-hungry wind and biogas industries is the opposite of what the environmental movement used to fight for: just as the communists made workers unfree and poor, the Greens have destroyed our landscapes and killed millions of birds and bats.

Wind power lobbyists say the numbers are small compared to the millions of birds that collide with windows, cars, power lines and other obstacles. But this is a fallacy, because the argument ignores which species are affected. If ten city pigeons fly into windows or cars, it has no effect on the population of pigeons. But when a breeding red kite is chopped up by a rotor blade, it represents a significant loss for the species in the region.

If one red kite is caught in a rotor every eight years, then the 28,000 turbines in existence at present will kill 3500 birds. In a total population of only 15,000 breeding pairs in Germany, that’s a dramatic loss. According to a 2013 study commissioned by the Brandenburg State Environment Office, rotor blades killed about 300 red kites each year in this one state alone.

If the German climate protection plan is implemented as planned and the number of turbines is doubled, the red kite could soon be extinct in Germany. The plan would mean one turbine every 2.7 km on average all over Germany, each one 200 m tall, without regard for landscapes, lakes, mountains, forests or cities.

The PROGRESS study showed that even a widespread raptor like the common buzzard would be threatened if wind power is expanded as planned. Birds that aren’t killed by the rotor blades are often driven away. One of these wind power refugees is the black stork, a very shy forest bird. When 170 turbines were installed in the Vogelsberg region in the state of Hesse, nine of the 14 pairs of black storks in the region simply disappeared.

If the argument that windows and other obstacles kill even more birds is very misleading, when it comes to bats the argument is completely wrong. Since bats use ultrasound to navigate, they almost never collide with any barriers. They can even fly through spinning rotor blades without getting hit. But even so, they fall dead from the sky. The cause is barotrauma: Their lungs burst because of the pressure drop behind the rotors. This happens to about 240,000 bats each year.

The actual number is probably much higher, because they often fly a little longer before they die and their little cadavers are eaten. Whenever there was a construction project in Germany such as a motorway, bridge, airport, office park or residential building, the presence of a bat colony could hold up the project in the courts for years, or prevent it altogether.

Yet when the wind industry kills masses of these animals, there is no such outrage. The supporters of the German energy transition brush aside all collateral damage to the environment, such as dead bats, with the argument that global climate disaster must be prevented.

Truly Green? How Germany’s ‘Energy Transition’ Is Destroying Nature | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

Read all of Michael Miersch’s brilliant and defining speech given on 24 October 2017 in the House of Lords, here…

•••

Michael Miersch Related :

Energiewende Related :

Unreliable-Energy & Climate Fraud Related :