GWPF Newsletter: EU Member States Plan To Stick With Coal Beyond 2030

The Myth Of The Green Wave

In this newsletter:

1) Forget Paris: EU Member States Plan To Stick With Coal Beyond 2030
Clean Energy Wire, 29 May 2019 
 
2) European CO2 Emissions Up In 2017
European Environment Agency, 29 May 2019 


3) Cato Institute Surrenders, Shuts Down Science Center That Challenged Climate Hysteria
Science Magazine, 29 May 2019
 
4) Ben Pile: The Myth Of The Green Wave
Spiked, 29 May 2019
 
5) Mikko Paunio: The World’s Plastic Recycling Problem Isn’t Going Away
The Spectator, 30 May
 
6) Greta’s Very Corporate Children’s Crusade
Standpoint Magazine, 30 May 2019 
 
7) And Finally: Where Do They Get These Ludicrous People From?
Andrew Montford, GWPF, 30 May 2019

Full details:

1) Forget Paris: EU Member States Plan To Stick With Coal Beyond 2030
Clean Energy Wire, 29 May 2019

Only eight EU members states are committed to phasing out coal by 2030.



Environmental NGOs Climate Action Network Europe (CAN) and Sandbag criticised some EU member states for receiving EU funds intended to support the energy transition away from coal without having a clear plan to exit the climate-harmful fossil fuel. A report, which analyses the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) of 21 EU member states that still use coal, shows that only eight of these are committed to phasing out coal by 2030.

According to the NGOs, the EU has to phase out all coal by that year to meet the commitments made under the Paris Climate Agreement. “Coal-reliant member states want to have their cake and eat it with just transition funding,” said Charles Moore, energy and policy analyst at Sandbag.

Full post

2) European CO2 Emissions Up In 2017
European Environment Agency, 29 May 2019

Total greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union (EU) increased by 0.7 % in 2017, according to latest official data published today by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

Less coal was used to produce heat and electricity but this was offset by higher industrial and transport emissions, the latter increasing for the fourth consecutive year.

According to the EEA’s Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2017 and inventory report 2019, total greenhouse gas emissions (including international aviation) rose by 0.7 % in 2017 compared with 2016. These official data confirm the preliminary estimates published by the EEA in October 2018…

The 0.7 % increase in EU greenhouse gas emissions observed in 2017 resulted from the main following factors:

* Transport emissions continued to grow: for the fourth consecutive year since 2013, carbon dioxide emissions from road transportation increased — both for freight and passenger vehicles. Most of the increase was accounted for by higher diesel consumption by trucks and vans, but consumption and emissions also increased for passenger cars. Emissions from international aviation increased substantially as a result of higher demand and consumption of jet kerosene.

* Across the EU, several industrial sectors recorded higher emissions in 2017 as a result of higher economic and industrial activity compared to 2016.

Full story

3) Cato Institute Surrenders, Shuts Down Science Center That Challenged Climate Hysteria
Science Magazine, 29 May 2019

The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., quietly shut down a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science, leaving the libertarian think tank co-founded by Charles Koch without an office dedicated to global warming.

The move came after Pat Michaels, a climate scientist who rejects mainstream researchers’ concerns about rising temperatures, left Cato earlier this year amid disagreements with officials in the organization.

“They informed me that they didn’t think their vision of a think tank was in the science business, and so I said, ‘OK, bye,’” Michaels said in an interview yesterday. “There had been some controversy going around the building for some time, so things got to a situation where they didn’t work out.”

A spokeswoman said Cato’s shuttering of the Center for the Study of Science does not represent a shift in the institute’s position on human-caused climate change. But the think tank moved decisively to close down the science wing that was overseen by Michaels. Ryan Maue, a meteorologist and former adjunct scholar, also left the center.

“While it is true that, with the departure of Pat Michaels, we have deactivated our Center for the Study of Science, we continue to work on science policy issues,” Khristine Brookes, the spokeswomen, wrote in an email. She didn’t mention climate change.

Full story

4) Ben Pile: The Myth Of The Green Wave
Spiked, 29 May 2019

It seems environmentalism is primarily a north-west European preoccupation.

The EU elections last week produced an apparent surge of support for greens across Europe. Parties from the Greens-European Free Alliance (EFA), the EU grouping the UK Green Party belongs to, increased their vote share across the continent by 3.1 percentage points to 10.8 per cent, taking 69 seats in the European Parliament.

This was a ‘response to the accelerating climate crisis that was the same in the UK and right across Europe’, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas told the Guardian. But perhaps the organic champagne had gone to her head. Lucas’s psephology is no better than her grasp of climate science.

It is true that the centre of gravity of EU politics is shifting away from the centre-left, represented by the Socialists and Democrats (S&D), and the dominant centre-right, represented by the European People’s Party (EPP). These two groups have long held the balance of power, but failed collectively to secure over 50 per cent of the vote this time around.

But the main beneficiaries of this shift have been the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group, which increased its vote share by four percentage points and gained an extra 38 seats, and the right-wing Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) group, which came from nothing to gain 8.7 per cent of the vote and 58 seats. In the context of these continued gains, green progress seems somewhat modest.

Moreover, EFA gains masked losses in Sweden, Spain and Austria, and its total loss of seats in Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Estonia leaves the EFA without representatives from 12 of the 28 member states of the EU. Far from reflecting voters concerns from ‘right across Europe’, then, the EFA’s truly remarkable successes in Germany (an increase of nine seats), France (an increase of six seats) and the UK (an increase of five seats), actually reflect a marked geographic split on climate issues within the EU. It seems environmentalism is a north-west European preoccupation.

What’s more, there are deep divisions within these more green nations. This is summed up by one of the slogans of the gilets jaunes, who have been protesting against French president Emmanuel Macron and his burdensome green taxes for six months now: ‘The government talks about the end of the world – we are worried about the end of the month.’

Greens tend to be drawn from wealthier constituencies, in which substantial increases in the cost of living, caused by green policies, are yet to dent disposable incomes. Scepticism of economic growth comes very easily to wealthier people.

Similarly, in Germany, the spectacular expense of the country’s ambitious Energiewende project – aimed at transitioning the country to a low-cost, low-carbon energy supply – is matched only by its spectacular failure. More than 340,000 German households are now disconnected from the electricity supply annually as rising prices push families into ‘energy poverty’. Once a pioneer of climate policies, German politicians are now looking to put the brakes on Wende. …

Greens fail to acknowledge how unpopular eco-austerity is, but the mainstream is being made to take notice.

This isn’t just happening in Europe. Across the world, it appears that extreme green policies simply cannot survive contact with democracy. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s much-hyped ‘Green New Deal’ is not popular with most US voters. In Australia, the Labor Party just fought and lost a General Election on the issue of climate change. Canada looks set to throw out prime minister Justin Traudeau and his green agenda at its General Election in October.
 
None of this is to say that climate change is off the agenda. Politicians across the West still seem keen on pursuing a form of eco austerity. But national governments, hit by crises of legitimacy, are at least being made to think twice. The pursuit of environmentalist policies has always been done via supranational institutions beyond democratic control. But now those policies and those institutions are being called into question. They have placed burdens on ordinary people, and environmentalism has started to become a political liability in certain places.

As a result, the green vote seems to have decoupled from the mainstream. As political leaders have had to deal more and more with the protests of agitated voters, greens have become increasingly frustrated and extreme. Mainstream EU politics cannot sustain the demands of the greens if it is to head off assaults from increasingly Eurosceptic nationalist movements. Political leaders must bring the business of politics back to the needs and wants of ordinary people, not the lofty utopian notions of environmentalists.
Full post

5) Mikko Paunio: The World’s Plastic Recycling Problem Isn’t Going Away
The Spectator, 30 May

In 2015, the problem of marine litter climbed to the very top of the list of global environmental problems after a landmark study suggested that there are 100 million tonnes of plastic in the oceans. Regrettably, the study overlooked the share of the blame that can be put on the recycling industry, which has exported 106 million tonnes of plastic waste to China over the past 20 years or more. A significant proportion of this is thought to have ended up in the oceans.

Last June, I sounded the alarm about the impact of recycling on marine pollution and revealed how unscrupulous operators were making the situation worse. Soon afterward, the UK audit office came to similar conclusions and the media started to give the issue some attention.

There is now a global congestion in waste management systems, because China’s decided to close its doors to imported plastic waste. There has also been a rapid increase of piles of plastic scrap in rich countries, as recyclers have found it increasingly difficult to find anyone who will accept it in China’s place. Even poor countries have been starting to refuse to take it because, with their poor waste management system, they are unable to cope with what they have taken already, let alone the increased volumes that western exporters would like them to take. Much of this material is ending up in the oceans.

Earlier this month, however, an obscure United Nations conference surprised the world by agreeing a global deal to curb the dumping of dirty plastic waste, often camouflaged as ‘recycling’, from rich countries to the developing nations, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam, who have become the chief importers of plastic waste now that China has closed its doors.

The huge volumes of waste that have previously gone to Asia will now have to be dealt with at home, by a waste management industry that is already struggling to keep its head above the rising tide of rubbish.

Remarkably, there has been virtually no attention given to this important decision. Green NGOs and politicians are keeping quiet because they fear that their role promoting bad policies in the past will come under scrutiny. The media, however, which has parroted green dogma about recycling for years will struggle to avoid mentioning the problems that the industry is facing in the wake of this UN decision. The plastic situation is now deteriorating rapidly, especially in rich countries.

The EU, meanwhile, is making things even worse. It has just passed cosmetic legislation, in the shape of a foolish single-use plastics directive, a knee-jerk response to pressure from environmentalists. But even more worrying are the repercussions of the UN decision on the EU’s Circular Economy Package, which was agreed 12 months ago. The package imposes binding recycling targets that are impossible to achieve. There is no way Europe can recycle 55 per cent of its plastic packaging by 2030, no matter how much is spent in the attempt. It would only produce a stream of recycled plastic of poor quality, which would be unusable by most industries. The result is likely to be a social, environmental and economic nightmare.

Full post

See also EU Faces Plastic Waste Crisis In Wake Of New Export Restrictions 

GWPF London, 15 May: The decision by the UN to regulate waste plastic as hazardous will unleash a massive flood of rubbish on many EU countries.



6) Greta’s Very Corporate Children’s Crusade
Standpoint Magazine, 30 May 2019 

Behind the schoolgirl climate warrior lies a shadowy cabal of lobbyists, investors and energy companies seeking to profit from a green bonanza

Dominic Green

ILLUSTRATION BY MIRIAM ELIA

Greta Thunberg is just an ordinary 16-year-old Swedish schoolgirl whose fiery visions have convinced the parliaments of Britain and Ireland to declare a “climate emergency”. Greta’s parents, actor Svante Thunberg and opera singer Malena Ernman, are just an ordinary pair of parent-managers who want to save the planet.

Query their motives, and you risk being accused of “climate denial”, or of bullying a vulnerable child with Asperger’s. But the Greta phenomenon has also involved green lobbyists, PR hustlers, eco-academics, and a think-tank founded by a wealthy ex-minister in Sweden’s Social Democratic government with links to the country’s energy companies. These companies are preparing for the biggest bonanza of government contracts in history: the greening of the Western economies. Greta, whether she and her parents know it or not, is the face of their political strategy.

The family’s story is that Greta launched a one-girl “school strike” at the Swedish parliament on the morning of August 20, 2018. Ingmar Rentzhog, founder of the social media platform We Have No Time, happened to be passing. Inspired, Rentzhog posted Greta’s photograph on his personal Facebook page. By late afternoon, the newspaper Dagens Nyheter had Greta’s story and face on its website. The rest is viral.

But this isn’t the full story. In emails, media entrepeneur Rentzhog told me that he “met Greta for the first time” at the parliament, and that he “did not know Greta or Greta’s parents” before then. Yet in the same emails, Rentzhog admitted to meeting Greta’s mother Malena Ernman “3-4 months before everything started”—in early May 2018, when he and Malena had shared a stage at a conference called the Climate Parliament. Nor did Rentzhog stumble on Greta’s protest by accident. He now admits to having been informed “the week before” by “a mailing list from a climate activist” named Bo Thorén, leader of the Fossil Free Dalsland group.

Independent journalist Rebecca Weidmo Uvell has obtained an earlier email from Bo Thorén’s search for fresh green faces. In February 2018, Thorén invited a group of environmental activists, academics and politicians to plan “how we can involve and get help from young people to increase the pace of the transition to a sustainable society”. In May, after Greta won second prize in an environmental op-ed writing competition run by the newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, Thorén approached all the competition winners with a plan for a “school strike”, modelled on the student walk-outs after the shootings at Parkland, Florida. “But no one was interested,” Greta’s mother claims, “so Greta decided to do it for herself.”

Full story

7) And Finally: Where Do They Get These Ludicrous People From?
Andrew Montford, GWPF, 30 May 2019

Apocalypse is now just 11 years away, apparently

The Times today is reporting some comments by Francesca Osowska, the bureaucrat who now runs Scottish Natural Heritage. Ms Osowska is alarmed, it seems:

“Imagine an apocalypse — polluted waters; drained and eroding peatlands; coastal towns and villages deserted in the wake of rising sea level and coastal erosion; massive areas of forestry afflicted by disease; a dearth of people in rural areas and no birdsong… All of this is possible, and there are parts of the world we can point to where inaction has given rise to one or more of these nightmare landscapes.

This is all pencilled in for 2030, so the apocalypse is now only 11 years away.

Golly.

As attempts to generate a bit of a scare go this is right up there in terms of silliness, although it does mean that Ms Osowska has narrowly outbid Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The New York congresswoman whose offer of 12 years was the subject of many a newspaper headline the other side of the pond a few weeks ago.

Indeed, Ms Ocasio-Cortez became the subject of so much ridicule as a result of her absurd prediction that she has now disowned it, saying that she was “joking” and that you would have to be possessed of “the social intelligence of a sea sponge” to think she meant it literally.

Where, then, does that leave Ms Osowska’s prediction of 2030 for the world to come to an end? Does this mean that she has a level of social intelligence slightly below that of a sea sponge, or is she too “joking”?
In fact, we can tell that she doesn’t take the threat of global warming seriously at all. A brief review of her Twitter account reveals that she has enjoyed long-haul flights to Canada, Sri Lanka, South Africa and Australia in the last few years, so it’s fair to say that she is not someone who really thinks we are facing an apocalypse.

In reality her comments are an attempt to drum up interest in the lecture she is giving tonight at the Royal Society of Edinburgh. They are clickbait, pure and simple. Nevertheless, I can’t understand why this sort of thing is necessary. I mean, who wouldn’t want to go out on a dreich Scottish evening to hear about how “special initiatives involving young people, gender equality and social inclusion” and “a fresh and innovative approach in galvanising our care of nature” will save us from disaster?

Where do they get these ludicrous people from?

The London-based Global Warming Policy Forum is a world leading think tank on global warming policy issues. The GWPF newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.thegwpf.com.