MEPs Urge Commission To Put Green Deal On Ice Amid COVID-19 Crisis
In this newsletter:
1) Europe To Be Crushed By Deepest Recession Since Great Depression
Daily Express, 14 April 2020
2) France Faces Climate Shutdown As Green Soviets Demand Ban On Cars, Hypermarkets & 5G
The Times, 14 April 2020
3) MEPs Urge Commission To Put Green Deal On Ice Amid COVID-19 Crisis
The Parliament, 1 April 2020
7) Global Coal Production On The Rise Despite Coronavirus Crisis3) MEPs Urge Commission To Put Green Deal On Ice Amid COVID-19 Crisis
The Parliament, 1 April 2020
4) Green Deal 'Incompatible With EU Treaties'
European Conservatives and Reformists Group, 2 April 2020
European Conservatives and Reformists Group, 2 April 2020
5) China May Delay Submitting Climate Plans Amid Economic Slowdown
Climate Home News, 13 April 2020
Climate Home News, 13 April 2020
6) Japanese Minister: Paris Accord Under Threat If Economy Recovery Trumps Climate Change
Reuters, 13 April 2020
Reuters, 13 April 2020
Yahoo Finance, 11 April 2020
8) Has Climate Hysteria Been Defeated For Good?
Geoff Chambers, Climate Scepticism, 10 April 2020
Geoff Chambers, Climate Scepticism, 10 April 2020
9) Joel Kotkin: Oligarchy and Pestilence
Real Clear Energy, 10 April 2020
Full details:
1) Europe To Be Crushed By Deepest Recession Since Great Depression
Daily Express, 14 April 2020
The Coronavirus will send the global economy into free fall, unleashing the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, the International Monetary Fund has warned - and Europe is expected to bare the brunt of the economic crisis.
Global economic growth “will turn sharply negative in 2020”, with 170 of the IMF’s 189 members experiencing a drop in their GDP, according to IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva.
The Bulgarian added: “In fact, we anticipate the worst economic fallout since the Great Depression.” She said hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign aid would need to be mobilised to assist emerging and developing countries.
“Just three months ago, we expected positive per capita income growth in over 160 of our member countries in 2020,” she said.
“Today, that number has been turned on its head: we now project that over 170 countries will experience negative per capita income growth this year.”
Ms Georgieva warned situation could continue to worsen if the global pandemic fails to fade in the second half of the year.
“I stress there is tremendous uncertainty about the outlook: it could get worse depending on many variable factors, including the duration of the pandemic,” she said.
But in a separate forecast, the European Central Bank has predicted the Eurozone will experience a deeper recession than the rest of the world.
The European Union’s 19-member single currency bloc might not show proper signs of recovery until next year, according to ECB vice-president Luis de Guindos.
Germany, the EU’s largest economy, is expected to shrink by nearly 10 percent in the first quarter, while France is also expecting a hit by about six percent in the current period.
Full story
2) France Faces Climate Shutdown As Green Soviets Demand Ban On Cars, Hypermarkets & 5G
Full story (£)
3) MEPs Urge Commission To Put Green Deal On Ice Amid COVID-19 Crisis
The Parliament, 1 April 2020
Nearly 40 MEPs have asked that the European Green Deal, a Commission flagship policy, is dropped for the time being due to the coronavirus crisis.
7) Global Coal Production On The Rise Despite Coronavirus Crisis
Yahoo Finance, 11 April 2020
Over the next four years, the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023, due to increasing demand from India and China.
Global coal production is expected to grow only marginally in 2020, from 8.13 billion tonnes in 2019 to 8.17 billion tonnes in 2020, a growth of only 0.5 percent after three consecutive yearly increases, due to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, says GlobalData.
The spreading coronavirus pandemic may too heavy of a burden for the already struggling coal miners in the United States, with three companies announcing operations halts due to measures to contain the spread of the disease.
Now, according to the analytics company, disruption has been most significant in China. Coal production declined by around 6 percent in the first two months of 2020 as workers could not return to mine sites due to the coronavirus outbreak.
However, by March 4, 83 percent of China’s coal mining capacity was operational and production is now expected to recover over the remainder of 2020 with a forecast decline of only 1.2 percent expected by the year-end.
Thermal coal production is expected to grow by 0.5 percent to 7.05 billion tonnes, while metallurgical coal production is forecast to be flat at 1.1 billion tonnes.
Over the next four years, the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023, due to increasing demand from India and China.
“Across the globe, compared with other commodities coal production is only expected to be marginally affected by the impact of the coronavirus as thermal coal mines are permitted to operate during lockdowns as they are deemed essential to maintain power supplies,” says Vinneth Bajaj, senior mining analyst at GlobalData.
Full story
Daily Express, 14 April 2020
The Coronavirus will send the global economy into free fall, unleashing the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, the International Monetary Fund has warned - and Europe is expected to bare the brunt of the economic crisis.
Global economic growth “will turn sharply negative in 2020”, with 170 of the IMF’s 189 members experiencing a drop in their GDP, according to IMF chief Kristalina Georgieva.
The Bulgarian added: “In fact, we anticipate the worst economic fallout since the Great Depression.” She said hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign aid would need to be mobilised to assist emerging and developing countries.
“Just three months ago, we expected positive per capita income growth in over 160 of our member countries in 2020,” she said.
“Today, that number has been turned on its head: we now project that over 170 countries will experience negative per capita income growth this year.”
Ms Georgieva warned situation could continue to worsen if the global pandemic fails to fade in the second half of the year.
“I stress there is tremendous uncertainty about the outlook: it could get worse depending on many variable factors, including the duration of the pandemic,” she said.
But in a separate forecast, the European Central Bank has predicted the Eurozone will experience a deeper recession than the rest of the world.
The European Union’s 19-member single currency bloc might not show proper signs of recovery until next year, according to ECB vice-president Luis de Guindos.
Germany, the EU’s largest economy, is expected to shrink by nearly 10 percent in the first quarter, while France is also expecting a hit by about six percent in the current period.
Full story
2) France Faces Climate Shutdown As Green Soviets Demand Ban On Cars, Hypermarkets & 5G
The Times, 14 April 2020
President Macron’s attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters has saddled him with radical ecological policy proposals likely to further damage the wobbling French economy.
They stem from his decision to delegate the fight against climate change to 150 members of the public chosen at random.
That group has now come up with a plan to modify the way the French shop, travel and produce food, including the closure of out-of-town hypermarkets to encourage shopping locally, and shelving the 5G network because it uses 30 per cent more electricity than previous iterations.
The panel also wants to prohibit the sale of cars that emit more than 110g of CO2 per kilometre by 2025 — far below that emitted by most existing vehicles, in effect outlawing them — and a ban on advertising hoardings to prevent consumers driving long distances to buy products they do not need.
Television, radio, internet and press advertisements for products generating high levels of CO2 would also be banned, and those that were authorised would have to carry the wording: “Do you really need this? Overconsumption harms the planet.”
President Macron’s attempt to appease yellow-vest protesters has saddled him with radical ecological policy proposals likely to further damage the wobbling French economy.
They stem from his decision to delegate the fight against climate change to 150 members of the public chosen at random.
That group has now come up with a plan to modify the way the French shop, travel and produce food, including the closure of out-of-town hypermarkets to encourage shopping locally, and shelving the 5G network because it uses 30 per cent more electricity than previous iterations.
The panel also wants to prohibit the sale of cars that emit more than 110g of CO2 per kilometre by 2025 — far below that emitted by most existing vehicles, in effect outlawing them — and a ban on advertising hoardings to prevent consumers driving long distances to buy products they do not need.
Television, radio, internet and press advertisements for products generating high levels of CO2 would also be banned, and those that were authorised would have to carry the wording: “Do you really need this? Overconsumption harms the planet.”
Full story (£)
3) MEPs Urge Commission To Put Green Deal On Ice Amid COVID-19 Crisis
The Parliament, 1 April 2020
Nearly 40 MEPs have asked that the European Green Deal, a Commission flagship policy, is dropped for the time being due to the coronavirus crisis.
The MEPs, mostly from the ECR group, say the Coronavirus crisis will have “deep and far-reaching” economic and social consequences.
The EU “must do its utmost” for citizens, insist the members, and that includes “scaling back” the Commission’s “pre-crisis ambitions.”
A letter signed by 37 MEPs says the executive must “re-examine its priorities.”
It adds that “now is the time” to “put pragmatism first” and all new legislative measures, including the Green Deal, are postponed to an indefinite date.
The letter was sent to Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel and David Sassoli, presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament respectively.
It is signed by, among others, Alexandr Vondra, a Czech member, Derk Jan Epping, from the Netherlands, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a former foreign affairs committee chair, Peter Lundgren, from Sweden, Beata Kempa, also from Sweden, Italian MEP Sergio Berlato and ECR joint leaders Jan Zahradil and Ryszard Legutko.
Dated 30 March, it says the EU faces an “unprecedented crisis” and the bloc “must lose no time building on the initiatives” it has taken so far to tackle the issue.
Full story
The EU “must do its utmost” for citizens, insist the members, and that includes “scaling back” the Commission’s “pre-crisis ambitions.”
A letter signed by 37 MEPs says the executive must “re-examine its priorities.”
It adds that “now is the time” to “put pragmatism first” and all new legislative measures, including the Green Deal, are postponed to an indefinite date.
The letter was sent to Ursula von der Leyen, Charles Michel and David Sassoli, presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament respectively.
It is signed by, among others, Alexandr Vondra, a Czech member, Derk Jan Epping, from the Netherlands, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a former foreign affairs committee chair, Peter Lundgren, from Sweden, Beata Kempa, also from Sweden, Italian MEP Sergio Berlato and ECR joint leaders Jan Zahradil and Ryszard Legutko.
Dated 30 March, it says the EU faces an “unprecedented crisis” and the bloc “must lose no time building on the initiatives” it has taken so far to tackle the issue.
Full story
4) Green Deal 'Incompatible With EU Treaties'
European Conservatives and Reformists Group, 2 April 2020
A legal opinion of the European Parliament's legal service requested by ECR MEPs Alexandr Vondra and Anna Zalewska has found the Commission's attempted use of “delegated acts” to reach emission targets under the Green Deal to be incompatible with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
“The Commission is trying to act beyond its mandate. It is important that the impact on legislation is determined not only by the European Commission, but also by Member States and MEPs who have been elected by their citizens,” said Alexandr Vondra MEP, ECR Coordinator for the Environment Committee.
ECR’s Anna Zalewska MEP, Shadow Rapporteur for the European Climate Law and co-initiator of the assessment added: “The Commission simply cannot sideline the co-legislators from lawmaking. What we need now is a discussion among the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council about the EU’s emissions targets and find a realistic way forward that does not undermine the Union’s Treaties.”
In the draft Climate Law, the European Commission has provided for itself the right to decide on the trajectory of achieving climate neutrality after 2030 by means of delegated acts. From the beginning, this raised concerns that the Commission wanted to set targets for Member States through a procedure without involving them. The Climate Law project is a flagship project of Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans.
In a letter last week, ECR MEPs supported by colleagues from other groups had called the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, that the fight against COVID-19, together with the adaptation of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), should be a priority for the EU and to postpone legislative initiatives for the Green Deal.
Full post
European Conservatives and Reformists Group, 2 April 2020
A legal opinion of the European Parliament's legal service requested by ECR MEPs Alexandr Vondra and Anna Zalewska has found the Commission's attempted use of “delegated acts” to reach emission targets under the Green Deal to be incompatible with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
“The Commission is trying to act beyond its mandate. It is important that the impact on legislation is determined not only by the European Commission, but also by Member States and MEPs who have been elected by their citizens,” said Alexandr Vondra MEP, ECR Coordinator for the Environment Committee.
ECR’s Anna Zalewska MEP, Shadow Rapporteur for the European Climate Law and co-initiator of the assessment added: “The Commission simply cannot sideline the co-legislators from lawmaking. What we need now is a discussion among the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council about the EU’s emissions targets and find a realistic way forward that does not undermine the Union’s Treaties.”
In the draft Climate Law, the European Commission has provided for itself the right to decide on the trajectory of achieving climate neutrality after 2030 by means of delegated acts. From the beginning, this raised concerns that the Commission wanted to set targets for Member States through a procedure without involving them. The Climate Law project is a flagship project of Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans.
In a letter last week, ECR MEPs supported by colleagues from other groups had called the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, that the fight against COVID-19, together with the adaptation of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), should be a priority for the EU and to postpone legislative initiatives for the Green Deal.
Full post
5) China May Delay Submitting Climate Plans Amid Economic Slowdown
Climate Home News, 13 April 2020
Beijing could wait for the results of the US presidential election in November before it announces an update to its climate plan
China could delay submitting it climate plans at least until after the US presidential election in November as officials focus on reviving the economy from an unprecedented slowdown, experts have warned.
The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the climate diplomacy timetable has thrown uncertainty over when China, the world’s largest emitter, will issue updated climate policies to the UN. Such plans are due to be submitted this year.
Critical UN climate talks, known as Cop26, intended to spur more ambitious emissions cuts at the first five-year milestone of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, have been postponed to 2021 from the original date of November 2020 in Glasgow....
Now reeling from an interruption of its productive capacity and a slashed growth forecast – the timetable for climate diplomacy has dropped down the list of Beijing’s priorities.
Full post
Climate Home News, 13 April 2020
Beijing could wait for the results of the US presidential election in November before it announces an update to its climate plan
China could delay submitting it climate plans at least until after the US presidential election in November as officials focus on reviving the economy from an unprecedented slowdown, experts have warned.
The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the climate diplomacy timetable has thrown uncertainty over when China, the world’s largest emitter, will issue updated climate policies to the UN. Such plans are due to be submitted this year.
Critical UN climate talks, known as Cop26, intended to spur more ambitious emissions cuts at the first five-year milestone of the 2015 Paris climate agreement, have been postponed to 2021 from the original date of November 2020 in Glasgow....
Now reeling from an interruption of its productive capacity and a slashed growth forecast – the timetable for climate diplomacy has dropped down the list of Beijing’s priorities.
Full post
6) Japanese Minister: Paris Accord Under Threat If Economy Recovery Trumps Climate Change
Reuters, 13 April 2020
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi warned on Monday that the Paris climate accord could face death if steps to fight global warming were put on the backburner to facilitate the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.
Reuters, 13 April 2020
TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi warned on Monday that the Paris climate accord could face death if steps to fight global warming were put on the backburner to facilitate the economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic.
Many economists and policymakers are forecasting a steep global recession this year as countries are forced into lockdowns to contain the spread of the coronavirus, curtailing business activity in a major blow to jobs and incomes.
“It would virtually mean the death of the Paris accord if we gave priority unconditionally to economic recovery, while neglecting the environment,” Koizumi told Reuters in an interview.
Under the landmark 2015 Paris accord, nearly 200 nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to prevent catastrophic planetary warming.
“No one at the environment ministry disagrees that the economy is important. We just would like to behave in a way that ensures the environment will never be left behind,” said Koizumi.
Japan last month submitted to the United Nations its closely watched target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a five-year review.
Full story
“It would virtually mean the death of the Paris accord if we gave priority unconditionally to economic recovery, while neglecting the environment,” Koizumi told Reuters in an interview.
Under the landmark 2015 Paris accord, nearly 200 nations agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to prevent catastrophic planetary warming.
“No one at the environment ministry disagrees that the economy is important. We just would like to behave in a way that ensures the environment will never be left behind,” said Koizumi.
Japan last month submitted to the United Nations its closely watched target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a five-year review.
Full story
7) Global Coal Production On The Rise Despite Coronavirus Crisis
Yahoo Finance, 11 April 2020
Over the next four years, the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023, due to increasing demand from India and China.
Global coal production is expected to grow only marginally in 2020, from 8.13 billion tonnes in 2019 to 8.17 billion tonnes in 2020, a growth of only 0.5 percent after three consecutive yearly increases, due to the disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic, says GlobalData.
The spreading coronavirus pandemic may too heavy of a burden for the already struggling coal miners in the United States, with three companies announcing operations halts due to measures to contain the spread of the disease.
Now, according to the analytics company, disruption has been most significant in China. Coal production declined by around 6 percent in the first two months of 2020 as workers could not return to mine sites due to the coronavirus outbreak.
However, by March 4, 83 percent of China’s coal mining capacity was operational and production is now expected to recover over the remainder of 2020 with a forecast decline of only 1.2 percent expected by the year-end.
Thermal coal production is expected to grow by 0.5 percent to 7.05 billion tonnes, while metallurgical coal production is forecast to be flat at 1.1 billion tonnes.
Over the next four years, the production of thermal coal is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 1.9 percent to reach 7.6 billion tonnes by 2023, due to increasing demand from India and China.
“Across the globe, compared with other commodities coal production is only expected to be marginally affected by the impact of the coronavirus as thermal coal mines are permitted to operate during lockdowns as they are deemed essential to maintain power supplies,” says Vinneth Bajaj, senior mining analyst at GlobalData.
Full story
8) Has Climate Hysteria Been Defeated For Good?
Geoff Chambers, Climate Scepticism, 10 April 2020
Have we won? By that I mean, has climate hysteria finally been defeated, and will it be replaced by sensible, rational, evidence-based policies for dealing with changes in the climate, or any other natural process which may or may not be caused by human activity?
Geoff Chambers, Climate Scepticism, 10 April 2020
Have we won? By that I mean, has climate hysteria finally been defeated, and will it be replaced by sensible, rational, evidence-based policies for dealing with changes in the climate, or any other natural process which may or may not be caused by human activity?
Richard’s article two weeks ago based on an article by Jason Bordoff, suggested a reason for optimism. Bordoff’s article represents the opinion of a climate believer who recognises that something bigger has come along. Like someone standing on the beach worrying about sea level rise suddenly spotting a Tsunami. In this article I’ll examine the question in more detail, and attempt to enlarge the field of discussion.
Of course, “we” science-respecting climate sceptics haven’t “won” anything. All that’s happened so far is that one mass hysteria has been displaced by another. Whereas climate hysteria was slow moving, hypothetical, and largely invisible in its effects, virus hysteria has a basis in reality that is obvious to all. But there are many other differences, and they need sorting out. Here are some:
1. The speed and urgency of the corona crisis has revealed a number of things:
1.1 Mathematical modelling is not an exact science. Even the Guardian has admitted as much. The era when climate modellers could announce projections for average global temperatures for the end of the century to a tenth of a degree (and be believed) are over.
1.2 It costs trillions to fix a global emergency, and trillions spent on fixing a crisis are trillions not spent on something more fun or life-enhancing. The days when climate worriers could announce that spending trillions plastering the countryside with solar panels would make us happier, create jobs and therefore be good for the economy are over (probably.)
1.3 Vast societal change (for good or ill) causes suffering.
1.31 The causal links between political action and political popularity (vital in a democracy in the medium term for continuity of action) are anything but clear. (See John’s article on causation and meditate deeply.)
2. There is massive disagreement between experts on the nature of the corona virus crisis, its seriousness, and the proper political, medical and social response.
This can be oversimplified and described as a debate between, on the one hand, a scientific establishment, represented by chief scientific medical officers and scientific advisers advising massive lockdowns and a halt to normal economic activity while solutions are found via the established methods; and on the other hand a number (a very large number) of specialists (epidemiologists, statisticians, etc.) who appear as mavericks, proposing unorthodox treatments and/or the acceptance of the inevitability of large numbers of fatalities, in the greater interest of society as whole (avoiding economic collapse and the ensuing social disorder, poverty, suicides etc.) Orthodox economists and other non-medical experts (criminologists, sociologists) may find themselves supporting the unorthodox, maverick side, for obvious reasons.
2.1 The above very rough description of the “sides” in the debate reveals enormous differences between the corona virus debate and the climate one. There are large numbers of experts who reject utterly the current political and social response to the pandemic. See this site for a daily update on the counter-consensual views of numerous experts. I have no idea whether they are right or wrong. I simply record the fact that they exist.
The days when supporters of climate action could talk about a “scientific consensus” are over.
2.2 The “sceptics” in the case of this pandemic are disparate in their expertise, but united in their belief that governments must look beyond simply “saving the health service” and avoiding the terrible images of old people being left to die for lack of health care, and consider the bigger economic and social picture. Their criticisms converge around this single observation: concentrating on the one single aim of reducing the number of immediate deaths from the virus may provoke a worse problem arising from economic and eventually social collapse. They argue for looking at the big picture beyond the immediate crisis.
2.3 Climate sceptics, on the other hand, accuse the consensus of being obsessed by a “big picture” that exists only in the future, and possibly in their imaginations and models. They have many, many different objections, from criticism of the data collection, the quality of the science, the projections, the politicisation of science, the insistence on mitigation rather than adaptation, to the propaganda and censorship in the public presentation in academia and the media.
2.4 The “virus sceptics,” it seems to me, hold a position that is irreconcilable with the mainstream view. Anyone can have a differing opinion on this or that detail of the lockdown, but their position is strategically opposed to the current political consensus. The division is binary. We shall know within a matter of months or a year or two who is right and who is wrong.
Climate sceptics, on the other hand, as different as Lindzen, Lomborg, Pielke, Lawson, or you and me, hold positions that overlap largely with the consensus view. Of course greenhouse gasses may cause temperatures to rise, and of course that may be problematic here or there (and possibly beneficial elsewhere.) Of course we can and should do things to improve air quality etc. “Climate denial” is largely a propaganda myth invented by the consensus enforcers. And of course, we shall never be able to establish objectively who is right, because of the time scale involved, and because the dream of zero carbon and a peaceful reversion to living in a concrete-and-steel-less Rupert Bearland is an absurd fantasy.
3. The world has changed immeasurably in the 3-4 decades since Catastrophic Climate Change became a Thing.
The political effects of this pandemic are utterly unknowable. And I don’t mean “this changes everything,” “things will never be the same”and similar banalities. We don’t know whether things will be the same, or not. Politicians from Trump to Macron have seen their popularity rise. That could be reversed tomorrow by one false move, one tragedy that tickles the media’s fancy.
Full post & comments
Of course, “we” science-respecting climate sceptics haven’t “won” anything. All that’s happened so far is that one mass hysteria has been displaced by another. Whereas climate hysteria was slow moving, hypothetical, and largely invisible in its effects, virus hysteria has a basis in reality that is obvious to all. But there are many other differences, and they need sorting out. Here are some:
1. The speed and urgency of the corona crisis has revealed a number of things:
1.1 Mathematical modelling is not an exact science. Even the Guardian has admitted as much. The era when climate modellers could announce projections for average global temperatures for the end of the century to a tenth of a degree (and be believed) are over.
1.2 It costs trillions to fix a global emergency, and trillions spent on fixing a crisis are trillions not spent on something more fun or life-enhancing. The days when climate worriers could announce that spending trillions plastering the countryside with solar panels would make us happier, create jobs and therefore be good for the economy are over (probably.)
1.3 Vast societal change (for good or ill) causes suffering.
1.31 The causal links between political action and political popularity (vital in a democracy in the medium term for continuity of action) are anything but clear. (See John’s article on causation and meditate deeply.)
2. There is massive disagreement between experts on the nature of the corona virus crisis, its seriousness, and the proper political, medical and social response.
This can be oversimplified and described as a debate between, on the one hand, a scientific establishment, represented by chief scientific medical officers and scientific advisers advising massive lockdowns and a halt to normal economic activity while solutions are found via the established methods; and on the other hand a number (a very large number) of specialists (epidemiologists, statisticians, etc.) who appear as mavericks, proposing unorthodox treatments and/or the acceptance of the inevitability of large numbers of fatalities, in the greater interest of society as whole (avoiding economic collapse and the ensuing social disorder, poverty, suicides etc.) Orthodox economists and other non-medical experts (criminologists, sociologists) may find themselves supporting the unorthodox, maverick side, for obvious reasons.
2.1 The above very rough description of the “sides” in the debate reveals enormous differences between the corona virus debate and the climate one. There are large numbers of experts who reject utterly the current political and social response to the pandemic. See this site for a daily update on the counter-consensual views of numerous experts. I have no idea whether they are right or wrong. I simply record the fact that they exist.
The days when supporters of climate action could talk about a “scientific consensus” are over.
2.2 The “sceptics” in the case of this pandemic are disparate in their expertise, but united in their belief that governments must look beyond simply “saving the health service” and avoiding the terrible images of old people being left to die for lack of health care, and consider the bigger economic and social picture. Their criticisms converge around this single observation: concentrating on the one single aim of reducing the number of immediate deaths from the virus may provoke a worse problem arising from economic and eventually social collapse. They argue for looking at the big picture beyond the immediate crisis.
2.3 Climate sceptics, on the other hand, accuse the consensus of being obsessed by a “big picture” that exists only in the future, and possibly in their imaginations and models. They have many, many different objections, from criticism of the data collection, the quality of the science, the projections, the politicisation of science, the insistence on mitigation rather than adaptation, to the propaganda and censorship in the public presentation in academia and the media.
2.4 The “virus sceptics,” it seems to me, hold a position that is irreconcilable with the mainstream view. Anyone can have a differing opinion on this or that detail of the lockdown, but their position is strategically opposed to the current political consensus. The division is binary. We shall know within a matter of months or a year or two who is right and who is wrong.
Climate sceptics, on the other hand, as different as Lindzen, Lomborg, Pielke, Lawson, or you and me, hold positions that overlap largely with the consensus view. Of course greenhouse gasses may cause temperatures to rise, and of course that may be problematic here or there (and possibly beneficial elsewhere.) Of course we can and should do things to improve air quality etc. “Climate denial” is largely a propaganda myth invented by the consensus enforcers. And of course, we shall never be able to establish objectively who is right, because of the time scale involved, and because the dream of zero carbon and a peaceful reversion to living in a concrete-and-steel-less Rupert Bearland is an absurd fantasy.
3. The world has changed immeasurably in the 3-4 decades since Catastrophic Climate Change became a Thing.
The political effects of this pandemic are utterly unknowable. And I don’t mean “this changes everything,” “things will never be the same”and similar banalities. We don’t know whether things will be the same, or not. Politicians from Trump to Macron have seen their popularity rise. That could be reversed tomorrow by one false move, one tragedy that tickles the media’s fancy.
Full post & comments
9) Joel Kotkin: Oligarchy and Pestilence
Real Clear Energy, 10 April 2020
It’s January 21, 2021 and President Biden’s first full day in the White House. Surrounded by cheering key Democratic Party constituencies and financial backers, the new president proclaims a “climate emergency” – something proposed in the primaries by Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee and Bernie Sanders – placing essentially the entire economy under Washington’s control.
“I have ordered immediately the end of all new fracking and coastal energy exploration,” the new President tells the teleprompter. “Our entire economic system will be reshaped to reduce carbon emissions. The war on climate change is a war we must win.”
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, such an approach might have seemed far-fetched, particularly coming from a supposedly moderate political figure. But the mass shutdowns we now experience – likely necessary in a pandemic – could provide a model for imposing harsh actions to curb carbon emissions that activists consider as great or greater threats than the virus itself.
Unlike in the Covid-19 pandemic, the pain will be felt not so much on Main Street shops but more on vast industries such as aerospace, fossil fuel energy, the production of gasoline-powered automobiles and suburban home-building. This is no science fiction fantasy. These are industries designated as targets in the Green New Deal and more or less embraced in its broad strokes by virtually all leading national Democrats, including Joe Biden.
When he takes office – or some other more sentient figure like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – the new President will inherit a governmental apparatus committed to the expansion of its own power. It will enjoy the support of Wall Street grandees and high-tech oligarchs seeking both social status and easy profits from an “energy transition.” Unless carefully controlled and monitored, the response to the current pandemic could end up leaving us with a system more akin to China’s authoritarian order, dominated by a narrow class of Mandarins and billionaires.
Already some environmentalists view the policies used to battle the virus, and the unprecedented course of actions, as a “test run” for what they believe will be necessary to save humanity. As in the Middle Ages, theology will play a central role in pushing an autocratic “solution.” In their oddly pious way, some environmentalists view the pandemic, like climate change, as a kind of “comeuppance” for the evil impact of humans on Earth. Nature is “sending us a message,” suggests UN’s environment chief, Inger Andersen referring to the virus, a view unsurprisingly embraced by zealots like The Guardian’s George Monbiot.
Recreating the Conditions for Autocracy
Throughout history, crises – like the Covid-19 pandemic – have been ideal opportunities for expanding centralized control of life, ostensibly for our own good. We are already seeing the potential rise of a new police state and in some countries, such as France, a rising incidence of informers, conspiracy theories, and even vigilantism.
Propaganda, relentless and clever, is critical for creating any kind of police state. The green movement and supporters of unlimited authoritarian steps to address the pandemic can now rely on the mainstream media’s often hysterical and innumerate reporting to provide political leaders with a rationale for uber-control.
Expertise and Oligarchy
A scientifically-based crisis offers an ideal terroir for the promotion of oligarchy. The current approach to reducing climate-altering emissions offers enormous opportunities not only for expanded government but also for Wall Street and the large tech firms to profiteer on our energy “transition.” This illustrates sociologist Robert Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy,” articulated in the early 20th century, that the more complex the issue, the greater the need for elite-driven solutions.
Like the pandemic, climate change is an extraordinarily complex issue that has been promoted by consistent exaggeration and predictions of catastrophe. Alarmed by the threat of imminent doom from a changing climate, some progressive pundits openly favor replacing democracy with a global “technocracy” that would preempt popular control and allow experts to implement policies of their own design.
The problem here lies with the notion of an “expert” class, which likes to see itself as “scientific” and unencumbered by prejudice. But having a PhD does not suppress the human desire for unbound power and influence. As the “experts” grow in power, as James Burnham noted, they see themselves as responsible not to the public, but to others in their peer group from whom they seek approval and support.
In this and other crises, we need to remind ourselves that enforced orthodoxy among “experts” – which we often seek – can prove very dangerous. After all, we have had so many miscalls from our cognitive betters on everything from “peak oil” and dietary advice to policy toward Syria and the Soviet Union. Facing pressure from the virus’s spread, there is already danger of embracing the same kind of centralized groupthink practiced so disastrously in China.
Clearly we should view open praise for China’s role in the pandemic with great skepticism. After all, China has now brought to our shores a pestilence. For well over a decade, it has provided a breeding ground for respiratory ailments such as MERS, Swine Flu and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Also troublingly, our corporations have shown little desire to break their own dependency on Chinese suppliers for everything from critical military aircraft parts to cellphones and medical equipment.
The Progressivism We Need
The current pestilence could accelerate the move to a technologically driven society which boosts the power both of government and high-tech oligarchy. The shift to on-line work, however welcome, boosts the ability of the already intrusive tech oligarchy, from Facebook to Google and Zoom, to collect unlimited personal data both for the alleged public good and their own profit. These private firms, linked to government, are inexorable and could provide the bases for a permanent autocracy. As Aldous Huxley warned: “A thoroughly scientific dictatorship will never be overthrown.” (1)
To reverse this tendency, government must play a positive and irreplaceable role. Rather than place the burden on households and small firms and allow quasi-monopolies to dominate life and the economy, the government needs to impose strong control on digital monopolies through such things as anti-trust, no doubt an unforgivable violation of some libertarian tenets.
In terms of energy, if we want to keep a robust economy and maintain blue-collar jobs, we will need to focus more on practical solutions to climate change, including work-at-home, dispersed work, nuclear power and natural gas and hybrid vehicles. The goal should be to use America’s indigenous energy to the advantage of the production economies of the Midwest, the Great Plains, Texas and the mid-south that are critical to American competitiveness and security and to every American’s standard of living.
Full post
Real Clear Energy, 10 April 2020
It’s January 21, 2021 and President Biden’s first full day in the White House. Surrounded by cheering key Democratic Party constituencies and financial backers, the new president proclaims a “climate emergency” – something proposed in the primaries by Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee and Bernie Sanders – placing essentially the entire economy under Washington’s control.
“I have ordered immediately the end of all new fracking and coastal energy exploration,” the new President tells the teleprompter. “Our entire economic system will be reshaped to reduce carbon emissions. The war on climate change is a war we must win.”
Before the Covid-19 pandemic, such an approach might have seemed far-fetched, particularly coming from a supposedly moderate political figure. But the mass shutdowns we now experience – likely necessary in a pandemic – could provide a model for imposing harsh actions to curb carbon emissions that activists consider as great or greater threats than the virus itself.
Unlike in the Covid-19 pandemic, the pain will be felt not so much on Main Street shops but more on vast industries such as aerospace, fossil fuel energy, the production of gasoline-powered automobiles and suburban home-building. This is no science fiction fantasy. These are industries designated as targets in the Green New Deal and more or less embraced in its broad strokes by virtually all leading national Democrats, including Joe Biden.
When he takes office – or some other more sentient figure like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo – the new President will inherit a governmental apparatus committed to the expansion of its own power. It will enjoy the support of Wall Street grandees and high-tech oligarchs seeking both social status and easy profits from an “energy transition.” Unless carefully controlled and monitored, the response to the current pandemic could end up leaving us with a system more akin to China’s authoritarian order, dominated by a narrow class of Mandarins and billionaires.
Already some environmentalists view the policies used to battle the virus, and the unprecedented course of actions, as a “test run” for what they believe will be necessary to save humanity. As in the Middle Ages, theology will play a central role in pushing an autocratic “solution.” In their oddly pious way, some environmentalists view the pandemic, like climate change, as a kind of “comeuppance” for the evil impact of humans on Earth. Nature is “sending us a message,” suggests UN’s environment chief, Inger Andersen referring to the virus, a view unsurprisingly embraced by zealots like The Guardian’s George Monbiot.
Recreating the Conditions for Autocracy
Throughout history, crises – like the Covid-19 pandemic – have been ideal opportunities for expanding centralized control of life, ostensibly for our own good. We are already seeing the potential rise of a new police state and in some countries, such as France, a rising incidence of informers, conspiracy theories, and even vigilantism.
Propaganda, relentless and clever, is critical for creating any kind of police state. The green movement and supporters of unlimited authoritarian steps to address the pandemic can now rely on the mainstream media’s often hysterical and innumerate reporting to provide political leaders with a rationale for uber-control.
Expertise and Oligarchy
A scientifically-based crisis offers an ideal terroir for the promotion of oligarchy. The current approach to reducing climate-altering emissions offers enormous opportunities not only for expanded government but also for Wall Street and the large tech firms to profiteer on our energy “transition.” This illustrates sociologist Robert Michels’ “iron law of oligarchy,” articulated in the early 20th century, that the more complex the issue, the greater the need for elite-driven solutions.
Like the pandemic, climate change is an extraordinarily complex issue that has been promoted by consistent exaggeration and predictions of catastrophe. Alarmed by the threat of imminent doom from a changing climate, some progressive pundits openly favor replacing democracy with a global “technocracy” that would preempt popular control and allow experts to implement policies of their own design.
The problem here lies with the notion of an “expert” class, which likes to see itself as “scientific” and unencumbered by prejudice. But having a PhD does not suppress the human desire for unbound power and influence. As the “experts” grow in power, as James Burnham noted, they see themselves as responsible not to the public, but to others in their peer group from whom they seek approval and support.
In this and other crises, we need to remind ourselves that enforced orthodoxy among “experts” – which we often seek – can prove very dangerous. After all, we have had so many miscalls from our cognitive betters on everything from “peak oil” and dietary advice to policy toward Syria and the Soviet Union. Facing pressure from the virus’s spread, there is already danger of embracing the same kind of centralized groupthink practiced so disastrously in China.
Clearly we should view open praise for China’s role in the pandemic with great skepticism. After all, China has now brought to our shores a pestilence. For well over a decade, it has provided a breeding ground for respiratory ailments such as MERS, Swine Flu and the 2003 SARS outbreak. Also troublingly, our corporations have shown little desire to break their own dependency on Chinese suppliers for everything from critical military aircraft parts to cellphones and medical equipment.
The Progressivism We Need
The current pestilence could accelerate the move to a technologically driven society which boosts the power both of government and high-tech oligarchy. The shift to on-line work, however welcome, boosts the ability of the already intrusive tech oligarchy, from Facebook to Google and Zoom, to collect unlimited personal data both for the alleged public good and their own profit. These private firms, linked to government, are inexorable and could provide the bases for a permanent autocracy. As Aldous Huxley warned: “A thoroughly scientific dictatorship will never be overthrown.” (1)
To reverse this tendency, government must play a positive and irreplaceable role. Rather than place the burden on households and small firms and allow quasi-monopolies to dominate life and the economy, the government needs to impose strong control on digital monopolies through such things as anti-trust, no doubt an unforgivable violation of some libertarian tenets.
In terms of energy, if we want to keep a robust economy and maintain blue-collar jobs, we will need to focus more on practical solutions to climate change, including work-at-home, dispersed work, nuclear power and natural gas and hybrid vehicles. The goal should be to use America’s indigenous energy to the advantage of the production economies of the Midwest, the Great Plains, Texas and the mid-south that are critical to American competitiveness and security and to every American’s standard of living.
Full post
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment