Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Green New Deal

Category Archives

Indian Power Min. Singh: World Cannot Stop Africa from Developing

Indian Power Minister Insists, the World Cannot Stop Africa from Developing

April 7 (EIRNS)—The International Energy Agency (IEA) press release claiming a consensus reached at the March 31 IEA-COP26 Net Zero Summit on “accelerating clean energy transitions” is deceptive. While note was taken by some media of the words of warning given there by India’s Minister of Power, New and Renewable Energy Raj Kumar Singh, watching Singh’s presentation makes visible the fury building in developing countries against being told they have no right to develop.

Singh spoke for the continent of Africa, and he did so with such forcefulness that IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol began, politely but insistently, trying to cut him off halfway through his remarks.

True, Singh calmly reported the great advances India is making in building up the percentage of renewables in its energy mix, and his government’s agreement that the climate threat is real. But what followed was outrage that the developed world, which “has occupied almost 80% of the carbon space already,” now makes “pie in the sky” promises to get to net zero carbon emissions by some decades from now, while demanding developing countries cut their carbon emissions. Here his tone changed:

“Now, in order to give space for others to develop, you have to think of the whole continent of Africa! You have 800 million people in Africa who do not have access to electricity. It’s not about us. We will achieve whatever has to be achieved because we get investments. But it is about those countries…. They have to develop! That development will require more steel, in huge quantities; that development will require more cement, in huge quantities. They also want to build skyscrapers. They also want a high standard of living for their people. And you can’t stop it!…

“You have to give space to those countries, whose present per-capita consumption is less than one-fifth of the world’s consumption, whose present emissions are one-sixth of world emissions. You have to give them space to develop. You need to understand [here, he hit the table for emphasis] that if they consume more steel, they will make [emphasis* more steel; if they consume more cement, they will make [emphasis] more cement; if they consume more plastics, they will make [emphasis* more plastics—and all that is made with carbon.”

By then, Birol had stepped up his “thank you, thank you” interruptions, but Singh insisted on talking over him to make one last point: “you” insist that we go for carbon capture and storage, yet are these technologies proven? And they are very expensive!

India does not intend to sacrifice its own domestic energy supply, either. That same day, India’s Environment Ministry issued an order extending the compliance deadline for Indian coal-fired power plants to meet tougher emissions guidelines, by up to two more years. The measure was supported by the Power Ministry, because the costs of retrofitting emissions scrubbers on existing coal plants are prohibitive.


India Helps Crush the Great Reset and `Green New Deal’

India Helps Crush the Great Reset and `Green New Deal’

April 6 (EIRNS) – In a second “No”, India’s Energy Minister Raj Kumar Singh said at an IEA meeting on climate change that “net zero” carbon is “pie in the sky” no matter when you pledge it for. At a meeting supposed to be preparatory to the COP26 in Scotland in November, Singh said, “I would call it, and I’m sorry to say this, but it is just pie in the sky. What we hear is that … 2060 is far away and if the people emit at the rate they are emitting the world won’t survive, so what are you going to do in the next five years…. You have 800 million people who don’t have access to electricity. You can’t say that they have to go to net zero. They have the right to develop, they want to build skyscrapers and have a higher standard of living; you can’t stop it.”

China’s minister Zhang Jianhua also spoke at that IEA meeting, but when invited to a formal pre-meeting for COP26 – by the UK, remember, which is its host – China declined the invitation.

John Kerry, in Delhi for the same meeting, “happened to meet” Sergei Lavrov, who was in India on the world’s real business (see separate report). Kerry was perhaps trying to gauge whether Russia would attend Joe Biden’s April 22 “Earth” (or “dearth”) summit. But at the IEA meeting Kerry appeared to be criticizing long-term pledges to net zero carbon, like China’s 2060 pledge. “Avoid the happy talk and recognize that this challenge is global”, Kerry chided.

The real challenge is the power to develop, as Minister Singh made clear. The only power that can meet {that} global challenge is nuclear fission and, as soon as possible, fusion. (See BBC News article here.)

These are blows against the royal family’s “Green Deal” which can be amplified in the United States. Americans do have ‘plentiful” electricity but a steadily increasing share of it doesn’t work. In 2020 the percentage of companies which reported suffering blackout problems {every month} leaped from 20% in 2019 – already very high – to 44% in 2020. The FERC attributed this to the increasing share of “renewable” (interruptible) power sources.

This destroys an economy’s productivity, exactly as described in EIR Special Report and The LaRouche Organization’s mass pamphlet, Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Crushes “Green New Deal” Fraud.

In a sign of political pressure for nuclear rising, President Biden’s “climate advisor” Gina McCarthy told press on April 2 that nuclear energy will be included in the Administration’s so-called Clean Energy Standard, which is intended to be a requirement for electric power utilities and generators.


Big Farmer Protests in Paris–‘France, Do You Still Want Your Farmers?’

Big Farmer Protests in Paris — ‘France, Do You Still Want Your Farmers?’

Apr. 4 (EIRNS)–Paris (Nouvelle Solidarité) –”France, do you still want your farmers?”  These were the words used to describe the protest organised on Friday in the Greater Paris region by the French agricultural union FNSEA. Over the last weeks, despite the COVID-19 lockdown and restrictions, thousands of farmers and French farm organizations pulled out their tractors, notably in Clermont Ferrand and Lyon, to protest EU policies that put them “in danger of disappearing.”
            In Germany also, farmers were in the streets in mid-March to protest their impossible conditions.
            At the center of the French protest are the latest EU outlines to reform the Common Agricultural Policies (CAP,) a regulated production mechanism established by De Gaulle in 1962 to boost production and food security, which has always been attacked by London, and has been gradually destroyed and diluted.

            With the EU’s “Green New Deal”, the proposed reform of the CAP implies new legislation aimed at taxing the use of nitrogen fertilizer. The new Climate and Resilience Bill, which farmers describe as a “punitive and unfair” nitrogen fee, would “stigmatize” the use of chemical fertilizer without providing any alternatives, said the FNSEA, France’s largest farm union. The union says the new legislation ignored the changes already taking place in farmers’ practices and would reduce farm incomes without giving a “real response” to current climate issues.

            The potential fertilizer fee coupled with the Egalim Law (requiring French producers to themselves collectively negotiate prices with large distributors), which has put agriculture output  prices well below production costs, could be disastrous to farmers and their families. At the same time the CAP reform in its current form requires farmers to make vast efforts to initiate an agro-ecological transition that most of them consider unworkable, and farmers are venting their frustration. A Senate report published on March 17 noted the “immense distress” among French farmers, due in particular to the “low level of agricultural income and the feeling of denigration” of the profession by “constant agri-bashing.”
            For the farmers, the protest is also about sending a message “to our fellow citizens alerting them to the urgency of saving French agriculture” without which “our food autonomy and the preservation of our national quality production” cannot be guaranteed. The farmers called for a CAP “for farms, not firms,” that “has the ambition to have many farmers, in all territories and in all lines of production.”


Biden’s Infrastructure Plan: Paving the Road to Hell

Huge amounts of ink, digital and otherwise, are being wasted in discussion of President Biden’s $2 trillion infrastructure plan announced yesterday. But one of the more revealing comments came from the ever-green Washington Post, which insisted that the whole purpose of the plan isn’t infrastructure, but bringing about a paradigm shift.

“President Biden’s infrastructure plan would turbocharge the country’s transition from fossil fuels, using the muscle and vast resources of the federal government to intervene in electricity markets, speed the growth of solar and wind energy, and foster technological breakthroughs in clean power,” the Post wrote. “The linchpin of Biden’s plan… is the creation of a national standard requiring utilities to use a specific amount of solar, wind and other renewable energy to power American homes, businesses and factories. The amount would increase over time, cutting the nation’s use of coal, gas and oil over the next 15 years.”

The Post concluded with excitement: “Biden’s strategy would amount to the most sweeping federal intervention in the electricity sector in generations.”

As that reality sinks in, there will be foot-dragging and more from all sorts of political and business layers in the country. The following response by Brian Wolff, executive vice president for public policy of the Edison Electric Institute, the power sector’s biggest trade association, is indicative:

“Certainly, we will review any proposed clean energy standard closely,” he said, “and we support policies that enable our member electric companies to continue to get the energy they provide as clean as they can as fast as they can, without compromising the affordability and reliability our customers value.”

Not precisely a ringing endorsement.


Kerry to Demand India Must Declare a Net-Zero Emissions Target Date

U.S. Special Envoy for Climate John Kerry will visit India in early April, The Hindu reported. The visit is a run-up to the April 22-23 virtual “Leaders Summit on Climate” hosted by President Joe Biden from the White House. Kerry’s April 1-9 itinerary will also include Abu Dhabi and Dhaka.

The Kerry visit is likely to focus on pressuring India to declare a target year, preferably 2050, for achieving net-zero emissions of greenhouse gas. But there is strong opposition to this within India, including prominent advisers to Prime Minister Narendra Modi such as Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, a Member of PM’s Council on Climate Change and former ambassador to China and the EU. In a recent interview with the Indian news daily, The Hindustan Times, Dasgupta answered a question on what he believes would be the impact on the Indian economy of pursuing net-zero emissions target:

“First, it would require us to immediately scrap all existing coal-based power plants and factories, or alternatively, retrofit them with carbon capture and storage technology. This would entail astronomical costs at a time when the economy is already reeling from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.” He added that it would also quickly derail Modi’s Aatmanirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India) policy: “It would necessitate an immediate switch-over to imported, existing clean energy technologies at a huge cost, denying our own industry the time required for indigenization or development of affordable indigenous technologies. Let us not forget that the US lodged a complaint against us at the WTO when we took some modest measures to promote domestic manufacture of solar cells and modules.”

“Third, we need to examine the trade-related implications of surrendering our principled position on ‘common and differentiated responsibilities’. The European Union is set to impose levies on carbon-intensive imports, even from developing countries. It would be naive to think that the countries calling on India to adopt a 2050 net-zero target are motivated purely by altruistic concerns unrelated to commercial interests.”

The “common and differentiated responsibilities” clause refers to the argument made for decades by developing countries that any global targets have to be applied in a differentiated way to their countries, since they are also trying to overcome underdevelopment.

The pressure on India is intense. Last February, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) hosted an annual event, the World Sustainable Development Summit (WSDS), in New Delhi with a focus on the climate crisis, with the presence of high-level representatives from the U.S., the U.K., the EU, the United Nations and other countries. At this virtual Summit, John Kerry did not mince his words: “We all have to adopt the notion of zero emissions.” And his finger pointed towards India when he noted that “90% of the world’s emissions come from somewhere other than our country (US)” and “70% come from somewhere other than China”.

The pressure has been building, especially over the last six months as Biden took over the White House. Some analysts claim that China’s 2060 carbon neutrality pledge has also contributed to the pressure, as has the UK’s diplomatic push to ramp up climate matters ahead of Cop26. Cop26 is the next annual UN climate change conference scheduled to be held in Glasgow, UK, from Nov 1-12. Cop26 president Alok Sharma visited India in February and issued a statement before his departure stating, “I firmly believe that powerful action from India will be a catalyst for change, encouraging others to be more ambitious in their approaches to protecting both people and planet.”

With the heat on, discussions have begun in India on what it can do to withstand the pressure.


Climate Models: With Enough ‘Free Parameters,’ Data Will Confess to Anything

Aug. 3, 2021 (EIRNS)—One of the criticisms leveled against the climate models used to terrify the world with the unfathomable horror of a change of 1.5 degrees by the turn of the century, relates to how modelers deal with uncertainties.

The entire Earth is a very complex system to model, and our understanding of many of its processes—wind patterns, rainfall, ocean circulation—is incomplete. This means that models cannot claim to be based purely on fundamental physics and well-known laws of nature, the way a simple physics demonstration used in a classroom would.

Instead, each of the uncertain values that is incorporated into the final model has some “wiggle room” in the specific value given to it.

If there are only a few uncertainties, the model as a whole will have only a few adjustment points, and there may be a very small range of setting the uncertain parameters that results in the model accurately producing past data, against which it can be verified.

But if there are many “knobs” on the machine, so to speak, there can be many ways of adjusting them such that the model matches the past relatively well (given the extremely incomplete data, no one expects perfection), while offering wildly different predictions for the future.

Climate models have many free parameters, many knobs to adjust, such that their matching past data says little about their ability accurately to predict the future. In this sense, you can get the underlying climate data to confess anything you’d like about the future, including out- of-control warming.

The Executive Director of the CO₂ Coalition recently wrote about the origin of climate models: “The father of these models was Cold War military theorist John von Neumann, who wanted to see if we could cause drought in the Soviet Union. He failed, thank goodness. Von Neumann joked, ‘with four parameters I can draw an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.’”

Professor Will Happer uncovered a 2010 paper by Jürgen Mayer et al. (DOI: 10.1119/1.3254017) that does just that. They use a Fourier coordinate expansion with four complex parameters to successfully parameterize a shape resembling an elephant. And adding a fifth causes the trunk to move around as its path is traced.

(Unlike the cases in climate models, in this case there was no data against which to validate the parameters, so the authors were completely free to set them as they pleased.)

What can a climate modeler achieve with hundreds or thousands of free parameters?


NASA’s Goddard Institute Pours Cold Water on Climate Change Sales Pitch

NASA’s Goddard Institute Pours Cold Water on Climate Change Sales Pitch

Aug. 1 (EIRNS)–Under the headline “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming,” a July 27 article in Science magazine covers the bombshell that has just hit the IPCC’s climate modelers: “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the model makers themselves, believe are implausibly fast.”

Now, the article says, “scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong.” Some of them are wondering how they can “turn their models into useful guidance for policy makers” – which was their supposed raison d’être in the first place! Worst of all for them, their feet are being held to the fire by Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who said: “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this [fixing the models].”

The IPCC is in trouble, because by the time the modelers’ bias was exposed, the supercomputing runs were already done and the IPCC report, based on these implausible fast warming rates, was nearing completion. The IPCC is now perilously close to being totally discredited, even by its own disciples. Meanwhile, other scientists, who actually measure phenomena rather than fiddle with models, are using recent observational data [gasp] “to rein them in.”

Here is a warning by one of the IPCC’s own climate projection leaders, Claudia Tebaldi, a climate scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: “For now, policy makers and other researchers need to avoid putting too much stock in the unconstrained extreme warming the latest models predict.”

Already climate papers are appearing using CMIP’s [Coupled Model Intercomparison Project] unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100. “But,” says the Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, “that practice needs to change. You end up with numbers for even the near-term, that are insanely scary—and wrong.”


Insane U.S. “Wind Corridor” Is Also Top “Food Corridor”—Starve in the Dark

July 20, 2021 (EIRNS)—The “Wind Corridor” in the Central States (Dakotas south through Texas), created by the green rip-off interruptible cartels, is also the “Food Corridor” for the entire U.S., as well as a large part of the world. The two states in the center of the Wind Corridor, Iowa and Kansas, head the nation with the highest percent share of their electricity coming from wind and solar: Iowa, 49 percent and Kansas, 43 percent. Plus, there are still more “renewables” projects underway here, and more shutdowns of coal and nuclear.

Central States spokesmen against the killer green energy subversion will participate in the July 24 Schiller Institute conference, “There Is No Climate ‘Emergency’—Apply Science and Development to End Blackouts and Death.”

Blackouts in farming are a disaster. Water pumps stop. Irrigation stops. Grain drying stops. Auguring stops for moving grain. Livestock heating, cooling, and watering stops. Manure removal stops. Electrified repair machinery stops. Food processing stops. Frozen storage stops. Milk goes bad. Milking machinery stops. Transportation of inputs (fertilizers, chemicals, seeds) stops. Transportation to market and processing jams up for animals, grains, produce.

Look at the rank of Kansas and Iowa, combined population six million, in U.S. states’ food production: Wheat: Kansas is number one, accounting for nearly 20 percent. Corn: Iowa is number one. Soybeans: Iowa ranks either 2nd or 1st with Illinois, year to year. Hogs: Iowa is number one, accounting for nearly one third. Cattle: Kansas ranks third; but together with Iowa, the two states rank second after Texas. Eggs: Iowa is number one.


Great Leap Backwards: Kerry Mobilizes Deadly Green Finance

Kerry Mobilizing Green Finance Genocide

Mar. 13 (EIRNS)–John Kerry, the Biden Administration hit man to enforce the Great Reset, is now actively running operations on the major banks to be sure they follow the Great Reset to cut off credit to anything productive, and pump money into the Green Bubble. Politico ran a column Friday on Kerry’s role in the fascist scheme. “The push — which could include a new executive order on climate finance — comes as Kerry’s team and the White House scramble to line up new announcements for Biden’s April 22 Climate Leaders Summit,” Politico reports. 

Kerry, it seems, served as the chairman of a global advisory council for Bank of America after leaving the Obama administration. Politico notes: “Kerry is leveraging personal relationships with Wall Street players as well as banks’ broad public promises to help fund climate efforts that they made alongside their pledges to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 or align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.   

“The White House met with environmental and Wall Street watchdog groups on March 9 to discuss its approach to potential financial sector regulations and executive actions to limit risk from climate change-fueled shocks. Groups on the call included the Center for American Progress, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club and 350.org, among others.”


Great Leap Backwards: Pushback to Biden’s “30×30” Cuts in Food, Water …

Pushback Against Biden’s “30×30” Move to Cut Agriculture and All Human Use on 30% of U.S. Land, Water by 2030

Mar. 10 (EIRNS)–A key part of the Great Leap Backward is that land and water use must be dictated, first, by greening the environment, and only secondly, for agriculture use, which will produce far less food. This is explicit in the EU “Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies” May, 2020 document; and in the 2020 Agriculture Law of Britain. For the U.S., this green dictate appears in the “30 x 30” scheme, which says that by 2030, human use of any kind—agriculture, forestry, transportation, energy, minerals–must be reduced on 30 percent of U.S. land and water, including oceans.

Biden was programmed to say this during his 2020 campaign, and it was formally announced Jan. 27, in his Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad” (86 Fed. Reg. 7,619).

A huge pushback is underway. On Feb. 22, 17 state governors signed a letter to Biden, opposing the Federal government overreach on this. Many also issued their own press releases. The states include most of the farmbelt, e.g. the Dakotas, Montana, Nebraska, Idaho and others.

There are local meetings of all kinds in opposition. For example, March 2 in Wyoming, a resolution opposing the 30×30 plan, and calling for local consultation, was introduced in the Uinta County Commissioners meeting, by the county’s Citizens Coalition for Sound Resource Use. The Commissioners will take it up March 16.

Last night in the small town of Valentine, Nebraska, a public briefing was held by Margaret Byfield, who has been holding meetings across the Plains states to mobilize people. Her organization is the American Stewards of Liberty, based in Texas. See https://americanstewards.us/

The usual citation is made that 12 percent of U.S. land area is already currently in Federal control. Most of it is in the Western states, and varies widely state by state. However a 2020 estimate by the Federation of American Scientists is much higher.

The text of the EO 14008, in Section 216, directs various Federal departments to provide a report within 90 days of Jan. 27, “recommending steps that the United States should take, working with state, local, tribal and territorial governments, agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, and other key stakeholders, to achieve the goal of conserving at least 30% of our lands and waters by 2030.”

The save-nature groups are all issuing specifics on where human uses should be locked out first—Sierra Club, National Geographic, Conservation Foundation and others. The National Wildlife Federation, for example, has put out, through its Associate VP for Public lands Tracy Stone-Manning, a starter list of which lands to lock up: 80,000 acres in Montana; 1.3 million acres of the Mojave Desert in Nevada; 250,000 acres in California of redwood forest and river rapids; and over 400,000 acres in Colorado.

The 30×30 catchy concept is also pushed in other nations, as a benchmark on the way to “50×50,” the crazed idea—also called “half Earth”—that by 2050, half of the land and water area of the Earth should be in a state of nature, minus people, so that biodiversity can prevail, and this, it is asserted, will keep creature life in balance, so that zoonotic diseases won’t happen, and life will be peachy.

The “half Earth” lunacy was promoted a few years back in a book by E.O. Wilson, the so called biologist. The Center for American Progress has backed it; and it was in the 2020 Democratic Party Platform, it is reported. A resolution was introduced in Congress on this. There is a 30×30 Ocean Alliance.

On October 4, 2020, Scientific American carried an article sub-titled, “The so-called 30 by 30 plan would protect 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters from development by 2030.” Under the main headline, “An Ambitious Strategy to Preserve Biodiversity,” the author is David Shiffman. He wrote,  “Scientific American’s historic endorsement of Joe Biden noted that Biden ‘has a record of following the data and being guided by science.’ With his campaign’s incorporation of 30 by 30 goals, that’s also true when it comes to biodiversity conservation…”

In May, the U.N. Biodiversity Summit will be in China in Kunming.


Page 3 of 5First...234...Last