Thursday, February 11, 2021

GWPF Newsletter: Rising superpower India to overtake EU as world’s third largest energy consumer by 2030


Paris Climate Agreement requires COVID-like lockdowns for decades, scientists warn

In this newsletter:

1) Rising superpower India to overtake EU as world’s third largest energy consumer by 2030
Press Trust of India, 9 February 2021
2) Paris Climate Agreement requires COVID-like lockdowns for decades, scientists warn
CNS News, 9 February 2021

3) Stephen L Miller: Are you ready for the climate lockdowns?
The Spectator US, 5 February 2021
4) Biden orders adviser to explore options for resettling climate migrants
Climate Home News, 8 February 2021
5) James Delingpole: Green jobs collapse in Germany and go to China instead. What a surprise!
Breitbart, 9 February 2021
6) Ben Pile: Democracy wakes up on the road to Net Zero
The Conservative Woman, 8 February 2021
7) Liam Deacon: David Attenborough’s anti-human miserabilism
Spiked Online, 10 February 2021
8) Bjorn Lomborg: Biden’s climate ‘fix’ is fantastically expensive and perfectly useless
New York Post, 10 February 2021

Full details:

1) Rising superpower India to overtake EU as world’s third largest energy consumer by 2030
Press Trust of India, 9 February 2021
India’s oil demand is projected to rise by 74% by 2040, natural gas demand is expected to more than triple while coal demand is seen rising to 772 million tonnes in 2040 from the current 590.

India will overtake the European Union as the world’s third-largest energy consumer by 2030, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Tuesday as it forecast India accounting for the biggest share of energy demand growth over the next two decades.

In its India Energy Outlook 2021, IEA saw primary energy consumption almost doubling to 1,123 million tonnes of oil equivalent as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) expands to USD 8.6 trillion by 2040.

India at present is the fourth-largest global energy consumer behind China, the United States and the European Union.

Underpinned by “a rate of GDP growth that adds the equivalent of another Japan to the world economy by 2040”, India will overtake the European Union by 2030 to move up to the third position, it said in the report.

India accounts for nearly one-quarter of global energy demand growth from 2019-40 — the largest for any country. Its share in the growth in renewable energy is the second-largest in the world, after China, IEA said.

“By 2040, India’s power system is bigger than that of the European Union, and is the world’s third-largest in terms of electricity generation; it also has 30 per cent more installed renewables capacity than the United States,” it said.

A five-fold increase in per capita car ownership will result in India leading the oil demand growth in the world. Also, it will become the fastest-growing market for natural gas, with demand more than tripling by 2040.

“India’s continued industrialisation becomes a major driving force for the global energy economy. Over the last three decades, India accounted for about 10 per cent of world growth in industrial value-added (in PPP terms),” the report said.

By 2040, India is set to account for almost 20 per cent of global growth in industrial value-added, and to lead global growth in industrial final energy consumption, especially in steelmaking. The nation accounts for nearly one-third of global industrial energy demand growth to 2040.

India’s oil demand is seen rising by rise by 74 per cent to 8.7 million barrels per day by 2040 under the existing policies scenario. The natural gas requirement is projected to more than triple to 201 billion cubic meters and coal demand is seen rising to 772 million tonnes in 2040 from the current 590.

To meet its energy needs, India will be more reliant on fossil fuel imports as its domestic oil and gas production stagnates.

Its net dependence on oil imports — taking into account both the import of crude oil and the export of oil products — increases to more than 90 per cent by 2040 from the current 75 per cent as domestic consumption rises much more than production, the report said.

Natural gas import dependency increased from 20 per cent in 2010 to almost 50 per cent in 2019 and is set to grow further to more than 60 per cent in 2040.

“The dynamics look quite different for coal, where India’s demand for imported coal barely gets back to pre-crisis levels over the next decade,” IEA said.

India currently accounts for 16 per cent of the global coal trade and many global coal suppliers were counting on growth in India to underpin planned export-oriented mining investments.

“These expectations are now running up against India’s determination to boost domestic production, leaving relative certainty only over India’s requirement to import coking coal for its rising steel production, together with steam coal for those coastal power generation plants that have been designed to receive imported grades,” it said.

IEA has forecast combined import bill for fossil fuels tripling over the next two decades.

“Energy use (in India) has doubled since 2000, with 80 per cent of demand still being met by coal, oil and solid biomass,” it said.

Full story
see also 
India Crafts Fossil Pathway to Secure its Future
2) Paris Climate Agreement requires COVID-like lockdowns for decades, climate scientists warn
CNS News, 9 February 2021

The study says that reaching the Paris Accord goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require similar COVID-like lockdowns every year.


A study by researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT) in Germany showed that because of the lockdowns imposed by COVID-19, CO2 emissions worldwide were estimated to be 8% lower in 2020, but measurements so far have revealed no CO2 decrease in the atmosphere. In addition, the study said that reaching the Paris Accord goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require similar COVID-like lockdowns every year.

The study, entitled Can We Measure a COVID-19-Related Slowdown in Atmospheric CO2 Growth? Sensitivity of Total Carbon Column Observations, was published in the scientific journal Remote Sensing and produced by Dr. Ralf Sussmann, PD, with the Atmospheric Environmental Research Division of KIT's Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, and KIT researcher Markus Rettinger.

In a statement, KIT said, “The corona pandemic has changed both our working and our private lives. People increasingly work from home, have video conferences instead of business trips, and spend their holidays in their home country. The lower traffic volume also reduces CO2 emissions. Reductions of up to eight percent are estimated for 2020.”

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “cumulative reductions of about this magnitude would be required every year to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement by 2030,” stated KIT. “Recent measurements by researchers of KIT revealed that concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has not yet changed due to the estimated emission reductions.”

"In spite of the reduced emissions, our measurements show that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has not yet decreased," said Dr. Sussmann in a press release. "To reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the long run, restrictions imposed during the corona pandemic would have to be continued for decades. But even this would be far from being sufficient."
He continued, "The restrictions imposed during the corona crisis, however, are far from being sufficient. They have just resulted in a one-time reduction by eight percent. To reach zero emissions in the coming decades, cumulative reductions of the same magnitude would be required every year, i.e. 16 percent in 2021, 24 percent in 2022, and so on.”

“For this, political measures have to be taken to directly initiate fundamental technological changes in the energy and transport sectors,” said Sussmann.

Full story
3) Stephen L Miller: Are you ready for the climate lockdowns?
The Spectator US, 5 February 2021

It’s only a matter of time

Last week President Biden signed an executive order to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords. This was a mostly symbolic gesture, as the same alarmism being pushed prior to the agreement in 2016 is still being pushed now while nation-states like China are still ignoring it. Now Biden administration climate envoy John Kerry, under fire for boarding a private jet to Iceland to accept a climate award, is telling the United States and the world that the conditions of the Paris agreement are ‘inadequate’.

As the global climate elite push eating bugs and staying home to save the Earth on the masses, it’s worth posing the question: what will be adequate? With the Global Economic Forum in Davos approaching in April, we’re going to start hearing terms such ‘Climate Equity’ and ‘Climate Reset’ (a play on the WEF’s Great Reset) more frequently. We’ll probably also start to hear calls for climate lockdowns. I know, right now that sounds completely preposterous, but don’t these kooky ideas always find a way to bleed into the mainstream? Fifteen Days to Slow the Sun!

The possibility of climate lockdowns is already being floated by some of our greatest thinkers. They see a confluence of global crises as an opportunity. The perfect storm caused by COVID-19 and the resulting global economic meltdown offers a chance to take what they see as bold and dramatic action to save the planet. The Biden administration will certainly use the consequences of COVID to push through some green legislation, but just as before, it will not be enough in the eyes of progressives. There must always be more.

Mariana Mazzucato, an author and a professor in innovative economics at the University of London, raised the prospect of climate lockdowns in MarketWatch last September:
‘Under a “climate lockdown”, governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.’

The idea of ‘doing capitalism differently’ is the driving rhetorical motivation behind the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset (another term for the implementation of global Marxism).

Karl Lauterbach, an MP for the German Social Democratic party wrote in Die Welt last December that ‘we need measures to deal with climate change that are similar to the restrictions on personal freedom [imposed] to combat the pandemic.’ How long before this theory makes its way into news outlets and politicians’ speeches here?

Of course this idea will be explained away as simply ‘following the science’. The lockdowns which began in spring 2020 contributed to what scientists are calling the largest drop in CO2 emissions in years. The largest reason for this was a decrease of approximately 40 percent in automobile and airplane transport. The World Economic Forum praised this figure in a blog post titled ‘Emissions fell during lockdown. Let’s keep it that way.’

Climate alarmists like Greta Thunberg and John Kerry will be salivating at the prospect of using the emissions data to enact their ideas of a methane- and airplane-free future. How dare you refute it! If we can all just stay home for two weeks (which would inevitably become four weeks), it’s worth it to save the planet. Anyone who questions such proposals will be labeled a science denier and accused of wanting to kill their fellow neighbors (you know, like what you hear if you don’t wear a mask for a casual walk around the block).

How would governors and the federal government impose climate lockdowns? Simple: by declaring that climate change is an immediate public health and national security crisis, and using the same authority granted to them by public health departments to implement them under the same guidelines they did for COVID-19. Bernie Sanders and AOC announced a bill suggesting as much yesterday!

This was always the risk with the mass implementation of lockdowns. Once your leaders enforce one under the guise of public health, they will not simply set aside their power to do so again. Don’t worry though, they’re just following the science.
4) Biden orders adviser to explore options for resettling climate migrants
Climate Home News, 8 February 2021
In a move hailed as “extraordinary” by campaigners, Joe Biden has ordered his National Security Adviser to look into how to resettle migrants displaced by climate change.

The US President has given Jake Sullivan six months to put together a report with “options for protection and resettlement of individuals displaced directly or indirectly from climate change”.

Refugees International’s climate displacement manager Kayly Ober said this order was “extraordinary”. By mentioning resettlement, she said Biden had gone “a step further than I thought any American administration would go”.
But any scheme for permanent resettlement will face a difficult path through Congress, Ober warned, with an extension of the scope of temporary visas the more likely solution.
The report will be drawn up in consultation with the ministries in charge of foreign affairs, defence, homeland security, international development and national intelligence.

It will discuss the international security implications of climate-related migration and mechanisms for identifying climate migrants “including through referrals”.

According to the the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, every year around 21.5 million people flee their homes due to extreme weather.
Central America and the Caribbean are vulnerable to natural disasters like storms and droughts, which have led many to migrate, mostly within their own countries, but also towards the USA.

A 2018 Journal of Climate study predicted the number of major tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean will rise 29% by 2100 from 1986-2005 levels.
Aside from these extreme weather events, parts of the world are expected to become unliveable because of permanent, long-term trends like sea level rise, desertification and places becoming too hot to live.
Eduardo Samaniego, an activist and undocumented migrant to the US who was deported to Mexico in 2019, told Climate Home News the US had a “moral obligation” to resettle individuals displaced by these impacts.
Full story

see also New study challenges climate migration myth

5) James Delingpole: Green jobs collapse in Germany and go to China instead. What a surprise!
Breitbart, 9 February 2021

‘Green jobs’ in the German renewables sector have collapsed by 50 per cent in less than a decade. No prizes for guessing where they’ve gone instead – but here’s a clue: it begins with ‘C’ and ends with ‘-hina’.

According to Clean Energy Wire in their report of the findings of Europe’s largest trade union confederation:
"The number of jobs in the German renewables sector (production and installation) has fallen from about 300,000 in 2011 to around 150,000 in 2018, the German Trade Union Association (DGB) found in an analysis of employment in the energy transition.

The drop in employment is mostly due to the collapse of Germany’s solar power industry over the past decade, as many companies were forced out of business thanks to cheaper competitors from China scooping up most of the market. The number of jobs in solar PV panel production and installation fell from a record 133,000 in 2011 to under 28,000 seven years later.
In the wind industry, the number of jobs dropped from its record of roughly 108,000 in 2016 to under 70,000 just two years later. “Employment with respect to construction renewable energy installations has been very dynamic in the last 20 years, both in a negative and in a positive way,” the DGB said, arguing that many more jobs could be created in the sector again."

There are two key points to be made here. First, China is not remotely interested in green issues — or ‘clean’ energy — except insofar as it enables it to gain a competitive advantage over the West while it continues full steam ahead with its fossil fuel-powered industries.

Second, the ‘green jobs’ promised by everyone from President Joe Biden to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson as one of the benefits of their proposed Net Zero revolutions are a myth. Or, if you prefer, a blatant lie.

This was predicted in a Global Warming Policy Foundation report published ten years ago by Dr Gordon Hughes, Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
He wrote then:
"For the longer term, there is little doubt that the primary beneficiary [of green energy policies] will be China. That is already apparent from the way the market is developing."

Renewable energy, he added, will always be a net jobs-killer because of its effects on the broader economy. By driving up the cost of energy — perhaps doubling it — and diverting capital spending from more efficient sectors of the economy, renewables destroy more jobs than they create.

"In terms of the labour market, the gains for a small number of actual or potential employees in businesses specialising in renewable energy has to be weighed against the dismal prospects for a much larger group of workers producing tradable goods in the rest of the manufacturing sector."
We can’t say we weren’t warned. Net Zero is a looming disaster and the politicians steering us towards it are doing so with their eyes wide open – and their tongues as forked as a snake’s.
6) Ben Pile: Democracy wakes up on the road to Net Zero
The Conservative Woman, 8 February 2021

A few days ago the Times broke the story of a leaked memo from Whitehall, in which it was claimed that the government is considering economy-wide carbon taxes. Amongst the most troubling of these interventions were demands from academics and campaigners that the price of domestic gas, meat and cheese must be increased to change our behaviours. Such was the scale of the instant blowback that by the evening the Sun reported the idea had been thoroughly nixed by Number 10. Poof! The ambition which had for decades underpinned climate lobbying and policymaking evaporated in hours.
As science writer Matt Ridley explained the following morning on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s TalkRadio show, the era of banal ecological platitudes was over: ‘It was always going to be clear that the cost was going to land on ordinary people because there’s no way you can change people’s behaviour without putting up their gas bills etc.’ The green crap had just got real, and the cold reality of setting emissions reduction targets had been revealed.
For years, I have been arguing that the climate change agenda lacks any democratic foundation and that its ideological underpinnings have neither been exposed nor tested at the ballot box. The points are abstract, but the questions are simple enough: what kind of world do environmentalists want to create, and how do we get there? We should not take them at face value, but detail is hidden behind the abstract nature of climate policymaking: remote supranational political institutions, far-off targets, meaningless percentages, and ideologues hiding behind scientific factoids. (Not to mention an atmosphere of high-pitched moral screeching against ‘deniers’.) Most people have better things to do than unpick it all: bringing up families, working, running businesses.
In my recent research on the Climate Assembly for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, I pointed out the consequences of policy-making without mandates.
Carbon technocrats have been desperate to find ways around the problem of democratic legitimacy that has haunted climate policy-making since the 2008 Climate Change Act made emissions-reduction ‘legally binding’. The green blob, and the MPs that seem to hang on their every word, knew that voters do not share their view of the ‘climate emergency’. The Assembly – a supercharged focus group – was therefore convened to stand as a sample of public opinion, the logic being that if you could persuade 108 ordinary people of the need to get to Net Zero, the wider public would accept the Assembly’s ‘recommendations’.
But these recommendations were manifestly tortured out of the Assembly. As I reported here on The Conservative Woman, the Assembly Report’s apparent support for interventions to reduce our consumption of meat and dairy was a simple lie, put into the report by the conveners. Similarly, demands for a tax on domestic gas use had come from the Green Alliance – an organisation heavily involved in the Climate Assembly. The Green Alliance claimed that the Assembly supported the idea, but deeper inspection of the Assembly’s 500-plus-page report reveals that it was very much against the use of punitive taxes. The appearance of support for them was made possible only by lumping together carrot and stick and forcing the assembly to vote on the two methods together, having only emphasised incentives. Green cynicism towards the public is pathological. They cannot help themselves.
So it was somewhat satisfying to see within a week of the report’s publication something just shy of a vindication of what I had concluded. A rare, perhaps unprecedented, moment of convergence, in which the ideology and reality of climate change policies were exposed to all. Democracy was perhaps being slowly roused from its slumber.
In the Sun, shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds is quoted as saying that ‘the UK is in the middle of the worst economic crisis of any major economy – now is not the time to be hiking taxes on families across the country’. On Channel 4 News – a bastion of climate change alarmism – an incredulous Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked an agitated, short-tempered and waffling chair of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben (the former John Gummer MP), ‘Weren’t we being told that the transition to a greener economy wasn’t going to cost us, that it would be all about carrot rather than stick?’
Gummer’s reply was an incoherent, vague and impossible promise of ‘fairness’, the only sense that can be made of which is a claim that the pain can be spread equally.
It would be too soon to declare that the political and media class had been hit by a pandemic of common sense. Nonetheless, the welcome development of the government’s accelerated Net Zero and ‘build back better’ agendas has been to provoke questions that should have been answered decades ago: how is going to be done, how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?
The answers to these questions have been, like Gummer, vague, obtuse and disingenuous – motherhood-and-apple-pie ecological platitudes, naked fearmongering, or ossified socialism. ‘Fairness’, my foot. If we do not get to debate and choose the policies and principles guiding climate policy, then ‘fairness’ is an already broken, worthless, cynical promise.
Full post
7) Liam Deacon: David Attenborough’s anti-human miserabilism
Spiked Online, 10 February 2021

A Perfect Planet presents humanity as a plague.



Our planet is wonderful, but it sure isn’t A Perfect Planet, as the title of David Attenborough’s latest BBC spectacular declares. To claim so is a statement of blind faith, not an observation grounded in reality. And the fact this is the central rhetorical claim of Attenborough’s latest programme is startlingly revealing, as well as misleading.

The planet is chaotic, mostly, and, to our eyes, sometimes cruel. Yes, the universe follows certain orderly laws which we understand to a high degree thanks to scientific observation. Atoms came together and formed a ball, thanks to gravity, and complex life evolved due to the process of genetic mutation and natural selection. But each mutation, atomic vibration and tectonic shift is without plan or purpose. So to call the state of the natural world ‘perfect’ at any one point in time is not only nonsensical but anti-scientific.
After all, was the Earth perfect when a meteor smashed into it, killing 99 per cent of life? Was it perfect when toxic volcanic glasses spread across entire continents and blocked out the Sun for years? Was it perfect when the bubonic plague killed millions, triggering the only major fall in the human population in history? Would humanity not mobilise all of its technology and resources to fight such terrifying natural events should they happen again? Or would we declare them part of our ‘perfect planet’ and meekly succumb to fate?

Attenborough’s well-known support for reducing human-population size is perhaps one reason why he seems perfectly happy to accept huge population-reducing events as part of his ‘perfect’ planet. Others less Malthusian than Sir David might not be quite so callously accepting of nature’s ‘perfection’.

Hence we don’t accept the global coronavirus pandemic as merely another wondrous aspect of our perfect planet. Rather we recognise it as a problem nature has thrown up that we must overcome – using science and technology. And in doing so, we ourselves seek to change, perhaps even ‘perfect’ nature.

Granted, you might say I’m taking this use of language far too literally. ‘Perfect’ is just a word, right? But language matters and the BBC has been quite explicit about how it wishes to use A Perfect Planet to influence and persuade us. It has deliberately set the planet up in its very title as ‘perfect’ against the species that it thinks is ruining it.
In the final episode, Niall McCann, a biologist, conservationist and explorer, says ‘this perfect planet of ours has been thrown into a state of flux’ thanks to the human species, which has become ‘so populous and so destructive that it has become the single most influential creature on Earth’. He even tells us that a catastrophe like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs will happen again. Writer Jeremy Rifkin gives the message an economic spin, announcing that ‘our mission is not growth, growth, growth’. Unchallenged, he tells viewers what infrastructure and power sources we should build and how we should reorganise our economy to preserve this perfect planet.

The entire final episode, in fact, is not natural history at all. Instead, it features a series of activists delivering ultimatums, while Attenborough argues for an expansive array of global policy proposals. Many, such as spreading seeds in barren areas of the Amazon, seem eminently reasonable and hard to fault. But some, such as ‘financially incentivising’ foreign government involvement in developing nations, are deeply political and highly contested. And the message itself – millenarian, apocalyptic and coercive – is not without its critics, even within the environmentalist movement.

Such a biased perspective should not be presented as fact, according to the BBC’s and Ofcom’s own guidelines. But because both institutions have now declared climate change an exceptional issue, there is no room for comeback. Indeed, since 2017 Ofcom has insisted that only one message on climate change is acceptable, ruling against the BBC for giving space to opposing views. The BBC has certainly got the message. It said that it had conceived of A Perfect Planet as an explicitly campaigning project to ‘raise awareness’ and deliver a ‘serious message’.

Towards the very end of the series, several well-spoken teens tell us the ‘planet may not be able to sustain life’ by the time they are adults, as they stare down the camera at their potential killers. ‘Do you want to be the generation who signs the death warrant of humanity?’, Rifkin asks in the closing shots.

Biodiversity, clean air and the majesty of the natural planet are causes for which it’s worth fighting. But portraying man as merely a disruptor of a once-perfect natural world is a gross distortion. And insisting we should reverse growth and industrialisation, as Rifkin explicitly demands, is a very extreme demand indeed.
Full post
8) Bjorn Lomborg: Biden’s climate ‘fix’ is fantastically expensive and perfectly useless
New York Post, 10 February 2021
Across the world, politicians are going out of their way to promise fantastically expensive climate policies.
President Biden has promised to spend $500 billion each year on climate — about 13 percent of the entire federal revenue. The European Union will spend 25 percent of its budget on climate.

Most rich countries now promise to go carbon-neutral by mid-century. Shockingly, only one country has made a serious, independent estimate of the cost: New Zealand found it would optimistically cost 16 percent of its GDP by then, equivalent to the entire current New Zealand budget.

The equivalent cost for the US and the EU would be more than $5 trillion. Each and every year. That is more than the entire US federal budget, or more than the EU governments spend across all budgets for education, recreation, housing, environment, economic affairs, police, courts, defense and health.

Tellingly, the European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans recently admitted that climate policies would be so costly, it would be a “matter of survival for our industry” without huge, protective border taxes.

Climate change is a real, manmade problem. But its impacts are much lower than breathless climate reporting would suggest. The UN Climate Panel finds that if we do nothing, the total impact of climate in the 2070s will be equivalent to reducing incomes by 0.2-2 percent. Given that by then, each person is expected to be 363 percent as rich as today, climate change means we will “only” be 356 percent as rich. Not the end of the world.

Climate policies could end up hurting much more by dramatically cutting growth. For rich countries, lower growth means higher risks of protests and political breakdown. This isn’t surprising. If you live in a burgeoning economy, you know that you and your children will be much better off in the coming years. Hence, you are more forgiving of the present.

If growth is almost absent, the world turns to a zero-sum experience. Better conditions for others likely mean worse conditions for you, resulting in a loss of social cohesion and trust in a worthwhile future. The yellow-vest protests against eco-taxes that have rankled France since 2018 could become a permanent feature of many or most rich societies.

Yet politicians obsessively focus on climate. Growth-killing “fixes” would delight a few job-secure academics, but they would lead to tragic outcomes of stagnation, strife and discord for ordinary people.

Most voters aren’t willing to pay for these extravagant climate policies. While Biden proposes spending the equivalent of $1,500 per American per year, a recent Washington Post survey showed that more than half the population was unwilling to pay even $24.

And for what? If all the rich countries in the world were to cut their carbon emissions to zero tomorrow and for the rest of the century, the effort would make an almost unnoticeable reduction in temperatures by 2100.

This is because more than three-quarters of the global emissions in the rest of this century will come from Asia, Africa and Latin America. These nations are determined to lift their populations out of poverty and ensure broad development using plentiful energy, mostly from cheap fossil fuels.

The last 30 years of climate policy have delivered high costs and rising emissions. The only reliable ways to cut emissions have been recessions and the COVID-19 lockdowns, both of which are unpalatable. Expecting nations to stop using cheap energy won’t succeed. We need innovation.
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

No comments: