China Gas Output Rises to Record as Coal Production Rebounds

UPDATE on “The end of coal, fossil fuels and the rise of unreliables – wind/solar.”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-17/china-coal-production-rises-as-government-avoids-output-limits

From Bloomberg:

China’s natural gas production surged to a record last month and coal output rebounded as economic growth accelerated power use in the world’s largest energy user.

View original post 350 more words


China: USA is “Selfish” for Wanting to Burn Coal

Meanwhile, China opens a new coal-fired power station every week. With 2,500 more in the pipe by 2030 (the exact year the Obama/China ‘Emission cap’ deal takes place).

Epic greenwashing propaganda by the Chinese. But all told, they are winning the propaganda green game with green activists the world over, including Greenpeace China, praising China for their “unreliable” energy (wind/solar) efforts!

Hilarious how far the West and eco-nuts are being taken for a ride.

Nice one China. You still got it ! (Propaganda wise that is!) 🇨🇳

Watts Up With That?

Smog hangs over a construction site in Weifang city, Shandong province, Oct 16. 2015. Air quality went down in many parts of China since Oct 15 and most cities are shrounded by haze. [Photo/IC] Guest essay by Eric Worrall

China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, has just called the USA “selfish” for wanting to remain economically competitive.

Trump must be urged to save climate deal

Source:Global Times Published: 2017/3/30 0:13:40 Last Updated: 2017/3/30 7:14:23

Leaders from China and the US reached an agreement on climate change at the end of 2014, which paved the way for the signing of the Paris Agreement the next year. China and the US are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide. China is poised to reduce the emissions per unit of GDP by limiting the use of fossil fuels. However, what the US is doing undermines the other countries’ dedication…

View original post 217 more words


Japan Infuriating Enviros By Building 45 New Coal Power Plants

Coal-fired power is dead Update…

Good news for Australia’s flailing economy. It’s a pity that the hard-green lobby and climate elites have successfully demonised coal under the weight of “global warming” hysteria, shifting hard to green-energy madness mode, selling more coal than Australia uses, making energy prices skyrocket, pushing jobs, industry and ’emissions’ offshore.

Nuts.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/japan-infuriating-enviros-by-building-45-new-coal-power-plants/

From the Daily Caller:

Environmental activists are fuming over Japan’s plans to build as many as 45 new coal-fired power stations in the coming years.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is still firmly behind plans to build coal plants, despite repeatedpressuresfromenvironmentalists to stop construction of the major new coal plants. Abe wants more new coal plants to make sure the island nation isn’t too reliant on any one source of electricity.

“Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources,” Tom O’Sullivan, an energy analyst with Mathyos Global Advisory in Tokyo, told Australian Broadcasting Corporation. “So it’s trying to diversify its fuel sources and it doesn’t want to be too reliant on any one market.”

Most of the coal Japan plans to burn in these plants will be imported from the U.S. or Australia. The country is also building additional…

View original post 294 more words


9 Graphs That Prove Carbon Dioxide Is Our Best Friend

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

carbon-dioxide-leaf_compressed

Bookmark this brilliant explanation of life-giving fossil fuels, ergo CO2, by Climate and Energy reasonalist Alex ALEX EPSTEIN …

Via The Daily Caller :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress
1:17 PM 11/13/2014
.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook
*
Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)

Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.20-PM-620x478.png

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen-Shot-2014-11-13-at-4.55.29-PM-620x477.png

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen-Shot-2014-11-17-at-3.30.17-PM-620x478.png

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

Read all nine here: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/#ixzz4U8uL5Fkr

•••

CO2 (Fossil Fuel) Related :

CO2 = Extreme Weather Related :

CO2 = Sea Level Rise Related :

9 Graphs That Prove Using Fossil Fuels Hasn’t Harmed The Planet

Photo of Alex Epstein

ALEX EPSTEIN
President, Center for Industrial Progress

Conventional wisdom is that the more fossil fuels we use, the less livable we make our planet.

And we have been using a lot more fossil fuels over the last 30 years — an 80 percent increase since 1980. Fossil fuel use has increased so dramatically that our environment “should be” much worse.

But is it?

 unnamed

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook

Let’s look at the hard data for key environmental indicators like air quality, water quality, sanitation, disease, climate danger, and resource availability. They show that using fossil fuels hasn’t harmed the planet — it’s actually made the planet a far more livable place.

1. Air quality has improved in the countries that use the most fossil fuels.

Take the United States. Since 1970 our fossil fuel use has increased 40 percent, and yet according to President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency, here is what has happened to 6 top air pollutants.

unnamed (1)Source: U.S. EPA National Emissions Inventory Air Pollutant Emissions Trends Data

The main cause here is anti-pollution technology that can generate energy from coal, oil, and natural gas evermore cleanly. As this technology is used more and more in China and India, their pollution problems will decrease, not increase.

2. Water quality has improved around the world

One of the most important environmental indicators is access to improved water sources, which measures access to clean water. Although we’re taught to think of fossil fuel use as fouling up our water, access to clean drinking water has gone up dramatically in the last 25 years as countries have used more fossil fuels.

unnamed (2)

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Nature doesn’t give us the ample clean water we need. We need a lot of cheap, reliable energy to power machines that clean up nature’s health hazards, such as water purification plants. Using fossil fuels supplied it.

3. Sanitation has also benefited from more fossil fuel energy

Here’s the big picture of sanitation — the percent of our world population with access to improved sanitation facilities, according to the World Bank.

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.20 PM

Sources: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2013, Historical data workbook; World Bank, World Development Indicators (WDI) Online Data, April 2014

Note that as recently as 1990, under half the world had “improved sanitation facilities.” The increase to two thirds in only a few decades is a wonderful accomplishment, but a lot more development is necessary to make sure everyone has a decent, sanitary environment. And development requires energy.

Want a more sanitary environment for people around the globe? We need more cheap, reliable energy from fossil fuels.

4. More fossil fuels, mild global warming

For decades we have heard predictions of runaway global warming that is making our climate progressively unlivable. In 1986 climate scientist James Hansen predicted that “if current trends are unchanged,” temperatures would rise .5 to 1.0 degree Fahrenheit in the 1990s and 2 to 4 degrees in the first decade of the 2000s. According to Hansen’s own department at NASA, from the beginning to the end of the 1990s, temperatures were .018 degrees Fahrenheit (.01 degrees Celsius) higher, and from 2000 to 2010, temperatures were .27 degrees Fahrenheit (.15 degrees Celsius) higher—meaning he was wrong many times over.

In 1989 journalist Bill McKibben, summarizing the claims of Hansen and others, confidently predicted that by now we would “burn up, to put it bluntly.” Looking at the actual data on a graph, it becomes clear that he was completely wrong.

Here’s a graph of the last hundred-plus years of temperature compared to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can see that CO2 emissions rose rapidly, most rapidly in the last fifteen years.

Global warming since 1850 — the full story

Screen Shot 2014-11-13 at 4.55.29 PM

Sources: Met Office Hadley Centre HadCRUT4 dataset; Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography

But there is not nearly the warming or the pattern of warming that we have been led to expect. We can see a very mild warming trend overall — less than 1 degree Celsius (less than 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) over a century — which in itself is unremarkable, given that there is always a trend one way or the other, depending on the time scale you select. But notice that there are smaller trends of warming and cooling, signifying that CO2 is not a particularly powerful driver, and especially notice that the current trend is flat when it “should be” skyrocketing.

Given how much our culture is focused on the issue of CO2-induced global warming, it is striking how little warming there has been. We’re talking tenths of a degree. Without instruments, we couldn’t perceive it. Maybe that’s why the doomsayers stopped talking about “global warming” and started using “climate change.”

5. More fossil fuels, less climate danger

Is our climate becoming more dangerous?

The key statistic here, one that is unfortunately almost never mentioned, is “climate-related deaths,” which tracks changes over time in how many people die from a climate-related cause, including droughts, floods, storms, and extreme temperatures.

The trends are shocking.

Screen Shot 2014-11-17 at 3.30.17 PM

Sources: Boden, Marland, Andres (2013); Etheridge et al. (1998); Keeling et al. (2001); MacFarling Meure et al. (2006); Merged Ice Core Record Data, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; EM-DAT International Disaster Database

In the last eighty years, as CO2 emissions have most rapidly escalated, the annual rate of climate-related deaths worldwide fell by an incredible rate of 98 percent. That means the incidence of death from climate is fifty times lower than it was eighty years ago.

Clearly, as the climate-related death data shows, there are some major climate-related benefits — namely, the power of fossil-fueled machines to build a durable civilization that is highly resilient to extreme heat, extreme cold, floods, storms, and so on.

Some might say the planet will soon be unlivable (though environmentalists have been saying that for 40 years) because of mounting dangers like rising sea levels. Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth terrified many with claims of likely twenty-foot rises in sea levels. Given the temperature trends, however, we wouldn’t expect warming to have a dramatic effect on sea levels. And, in fact, it hasn’t.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/13/9-graphs-that-prove-using-fossil-fuels-hasnt-harmed-the-planet/2/#ixzz4U8zDhKiI


The World Needs More Energy!

A very powerful and important read by Steven Lyazi – a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda.

Wow!

Excerpts that grabbed my attention:

“But it is also because callous, imperialistic people in rich countries use exaggerated, imaginary or phony environmental concerns and fake disasters to justify laws, regulations and excuses not to let poor countries use fossil fuels or nuclear power or develop their economies.
They tell us we should only use renewable energy. They say nuclear power is dangerous, and oil, gas and coal are dirty and cause dangerous climate change. They don’t seem to think or care about the poverty, diseases and starvation that we suffer because we do not have fossil fuels.

“But that does not mean we should accept more poverty. It does not mean these rich, powerful people should be able to take away our right to live. It does not mean they have a right to put make-believe scare stories in our papers, on our televisions and radios, and on the internet.
It does not mean they should invent claims that our planet is boiling and we are causing droughts and floods – and so we should throw away coal and other cheap energies that we need to survive.

“But getting rid of poverty and disease is also a big change that would be good for all of us, and cannot happen without fossil fuels.”

Read it all…

PA Pundits - International

Driessenprofile2Paul Driessen from CFACT introduces this Guest Post ~

In his new article, my young Ugandan mentee Steven Lyazi makes a passionate appeal, asking that African and global leaders do much more to make fossil fuels and electricity available for poor families, nations and communities around the world. Only in that way, he convincingly argues, can the world’s poor improve their lives, living standards, health and life spans.

Poor countries have a right to use fossil fuels and will no longer let anyone stop us

By Steven Lyazi ~

Our planet is blessed with abundant resources that can generate enormous energy, provide raw materials for wondrous technologies, and build modern homes, roads and other structures – to support every man, woman and child on this earth. But can and will political powers make them available to the people who need them?

Of all these resources, energy is the most…

View original post 1,219 more words


Indonesia Doubles Coal Use, Ratifies “Climate” Treaty

Meanwhile, the politically correct, climate-obsessed, eco-brainwashed West continues to destroy their economies, pursuing useless “unreliable” energy – wind and solar – that do not reduce global emissions, at all.

Such energy fantasies simply increase the cost of doing business, making industry uncompetitive, shifting jobs and ’emissions’ offshore to third-world countries where environmental regulations and working conditions are substandard, leading to real environmental and social issues, like forest destruction, air particulate pollution and sweat shops.

Draconian Climate policy, formulated by unelected global elites at Paris-like gabfests, really are “killing the planet to save it.”

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

image

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/10/19/world/asia/ap-as-indonesia-climate-change.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

image

image

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/10/05/indonesias-coal-consumption-remains-high-bp.html

Tony Heller noted this juxtaposition of news from Indonesia this month.

So perhaps it is time to recall just what it was that Indonesia agreed to in the Paris Agreement.

My full analysis of Indonesia’s INDC, which the Carbon Tracker website rated as “Inadequate” from last November is here. But the gist of it is this:

image_thumb36

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/06/indonesias-climate-plan-inadequate/

The BAU case projects emissions of 2881 GtCO2e by 2030:

image_thumb37

Therefore, a cut of 29% leaves a target of 2046 GtCO2e, still well above 2005 emissions of 1800 GtCO2e.

But this is not the whole story.

As the above makes clear, land use change accounts for 63% of all emissions, totally dwarfing the burning of fossil fuels. This figure reflects the enormous amount of forest that has been cut down, often to make room for palm oil and pulp wood plantations. On top of that,

View original post 319 more words


Small modular reactors could be operating in the UK by 2030 – report 

The sooner the better. Then UK hospitals won’t have to “turn off their lights and air-conditioners and turn on their emergency diesel generators to pump power back into the grid, every time British breezes turn to zephyrs.”

A true, “you can’t make this stuff up” story! …

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2016/09/13/uk-losing-patients-hospitals-face-power-cuts-when-wind-power-output-drops/

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Small modular reactor [credit: ANS Nuclear Cafe] Small modular reactor [credit: ANS Nuclear Cafe]
With enough government backing SMRs could be a competitive alternative to unreliable renewables in the long term. PoliticsHome reporting.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) could be operating in the UK by 2030 and the Government has a crucial role to play in encouraging early investor confidence, according to a new report by the Energy Technologies Institute (ETI). 

View original post 319 more words