The Peril of Politicizing Science
In this newsletter:
1) U.S. Democrats start to splinter over climate measures in infrastructure negotiations
The Washington Post, 16 June 2021
2) ‘No climate, no deal’: Progressives threaten bipartisan infrastructure deal
The Washington Times, 16 June 2021
The Washington Times, 16 June 2021
4) The worst setback for solar energy in a decade
OilPrice.com, 15 June 2021
OilPrice.com, 15 June 2021
5) James Conca: Washington State’s Approaching Energy Crisis
Forbes, 15 June 2021
Forbes, 15 June 2021
6) Scotland's Net Zero fiasco
The Times, 16 June 2021
The Times, 16 June 2021
7) Climate alarmists continue to have a big problem: democracy
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2021
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2021
8) Patrick Michaels: The death spiral of American academia
Global Warming Policy Forum, 16 June 2021
9) Anna I. Krylov: The Peril of Politicizing Science
J. Phys. Chem. Lett. June 2021
10) And finally: Oil likely to hit $100 a barrel, say top commodity traders
Financial Times, 15 June 2021
Full details:
1) U.S. Democrats start to splinter over climate measures in infrastructure negotiations
The Washington Post, 16 June 2021
CLIMATE CONCERNS RISE TO THE TOP: “A number of congressional Democrats erupted in fresh revolt Tuesday in response to a still-forming, bipartisan infrastructure package, arguing the nearly $1 trillion plan is likely to fall short of their ambitions to boost the economy and combat broader challenges including climate change,” our colleagues Tony Romm and Seung Min Kim report.
Democrats in… wait for it… disarray: “As the architects of the bipartisan Senate plan began pitching its contours to their fellow lawmakers on Tuesday, hoping to build political momentum, multiple Democrats — liberals in particular — lashed out at the approach.”
“They questioned its price tag, which includes roughly $579 billion in new spending, since it is much smaller than the roughly $2.2 trillion Biden initially put forward as part of his American Jobs Plan. And they raised concerns that Senate negotiators might have traded away too many of their policy priorities in pursuit of Republican support — perhaps jeopardizing Democratic votes in the process.”
“If they want a bipartisan infrastructure package to have the unified support of the Democratic caucus, those of us who insist on there being serious climate measures at long, long last are going to need specific assurances about how that gets done,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Tony and SMK of the administration.
“I don’t think there’s going to be a great fervor for a bipartisan deal unless we’re guaranteed that we’re going to have a big bill,” Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) told them.
Full story ($)
2) ‘No climate, no deal’: Progressives threaten bipartisan infrastructure deal
The Washington Times, 16 June 2021
Progressive Democrats are threatening to blow up the bipartisan infrastructure package being debated within the Senate if their aggressive climate change demands are not met.
“It’s time for us to go our own way,” said Sen. Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and the author of the Green New Deal. “We cannot let Republican calls for bipartisanship deny the American people the climate action that they have been demanding.”
Mr. Markey and his allies are mobilizing to kill the bipartisan package if it is not changed to be sufficiently more “green” or secure a guarantee that Congress will push an aggressive climate change package along party lines at a later date.
“If we’re looking at a deal on infrastructure going to the floor that does not have the energy investments in it and in which there has not been a deal worked out on reconciliation to have those energy investments,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democrat. “Then absolutely not, I will not support the package.”
The threat comes as a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers — led by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Democrat, and Mitt Romney, Utah Republican — has forged an infrastructure deal they hope is acceptable to all sides.
The proposal, which has yet to secure the support of President Biden or congressional leaders, would allot $1.2 trillion for fixing the nation’s roads and bridges. To the chagrin of progressives, it does not include strong climate change provisions, apart from providing money for electric vehicle charging stations.
“When the ship sails on infrastructure, energy investments cannot be left on the docks,” Mr. Merkley said. “If there is no climate, there is no deal.”
Progressives fear that by accepting the bipartisan package, they will not get another chance at passing infrastructure-related climate change investments.
“Climate action is good policy and it’s good politics,” said Mr. Markey. “Let’s get this done for the American people … otherwise we will fall into the Republican trap of delay and denial that will ultimately harm and perhaps preclude our ability to act in this very important area.”
The prospect that progressives will be able to hold the bipartisan deal hostage for broader promises on climate change is not out of the realm of possibility. Democrats only hold narrow majorities within both houses of Congress.
In the Senate, the parties are split 50-50, while in the House, Democrats have a single-digit majority.
Unless Democrats choose to move infrastructure through the budget reconciliation process, which allows spending bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes, any deal will likely require at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Complicating matters is that it is unclear how many Republicans will opt to back the bipartisan deal.
Full story
10) And finally: Oil likely to hit $100 a barrel, say top commodity traders
Financial Times, 15 June 2021
The world’s top commodity traders have forecast a return to $100-a-barrel oil, as investment in new supplies slows down before demand has peaked and before green alternatives can take up the slack.
Executives from Vitol, Glencore and Trafigura and Goldman Sachs said on Tuesday that $100 crude was a real possibility, with prices already reaching their highest level in two years this week as Brent crude moved above $73 a barrel.
The prediction comes at a time when concern about inflation is rising and many commodities, such as copper, have already reached record highs, boosted by supply shortfalls as the economic recovery gathers pace.
Oil has lagged behind because of a slowdown in demand during the coronavirus pandemic and fears demand could peak in the next decade. But predictions that prices will move much higher in the next few years have gained momentum in recent weeks.
Jeremy Weir, executive chair of Trafigura, one of the world’s largest independent oil traders, told the FT Commodities Global Summit on Tuesday that he was “concerned” by the lack of spending on new supply because the world was not ready to make the leap to clean energy and complete electrification.
“I actually think that there is a chance for oil to get up to those numbers,” he told the summit. “The issue for oil is not demand . . . the supply situation is quite concerning. We’ve gone from 15 years of reserves to 10 years. We’ve seen capital expenditure go from five years ago at $400bn a year to just $100bn a year. So therefore, there is a concern on the supply side . . . that I think will probably drive prices higher.”
Alex Sanna, the top oil trader at Glencore, also said that $100 oil was looking more likely.
“If you’re cutting supply without at the same time addressing your demand that is when you can get price dislocations,” Sanna said. “You’re really only one or two events away from a material spike in oil prices.”
Oil has not traded above $100 a barrel since 2014, when a surge in supplies from the US shale sector brought the last so-called supercycle to an end. At the start of this century oil prices rallied from near $10 a barrel to reach above $100 in 2008, boosted by growing Chinese demand. Prices, while volatile, averaged around $100 a barrel for the next six years.
Russell Hardy, chief executive of Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader, said $100 oil was a “possibility”, though he believes there should be enough spare capacity, with Opec and allies such as Russia still restricting supplies because of the pandemic.
“There’s 5m barrels of spare production being held back from the market today,” Hardy said.
But Jeff Currie at Goldman Sachs, one of the big proponents of oil’s rally last decade, has argued that commodities are looking at a new supercycle as government stimulus measures boost demand.
He believes oil demand will rise because policymakers will use spending on huge green infrastructure projects as stimulus measures aimed at tackling inequality.
“We argue that every $2 trillion of green capex spend is worth about 200,000 barrels per day of oil demand,” he said.
Hardy at Vitol said the trading house believed oil demand would peak around 2030 but that at first demand would not fall sharply initially, instead plateauing well above the 100m barrels a day level it first reached in 2019.
The key period for the risk of an oil supply gap was between 2025 to 2030, he said, and that because of growth in the developing world it would take until 2040 for global oil demand to start falling rapidly.
“Oil demand will probably carry on growing till 2030, obviously dominated by non-OECD and developing markets,” he said.
Marco Dunand, co-founder of Mercuria, said he expected oil demand to recover to pre-pandemic levels and reach bit a bit over 100m b/d by the year’s end, while Torbjörn Törnqvist, chairman of Gunvor, agreed that $100 oil could return and that high prices were needed to incentivise investment in the industry.
Some of the largest oil producers such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have said their oil production will start to taper in the coming years as they shift investments towards greener forms of energy under pressure from investors.
Full story ($)
The Washington Post, 16 June 2021
CLIMATE CONCERNS RISE TO THE TOP: “A number of congressional Democrats erupted in fresh revolt Tuesday in response to a still-forming, bipartisan infrastructure package, arguing the nearly $1 trillion plan is likely to fall short of their ambitions to boost the economy and combat broader challenges including climate change,” our colleagues Tony Romm and Seung Min Kim report.
Democrats in… wait for it… disarray: “As the architects of the bipartisan Senate plan began pitching its contours to their fellow lawmakers on Tuesday, hoping to build political momentum, multiple Democrats — liberals in particular — lashed out at the approach.”
“They questioned its price tag, which includes roughly $579 billion in new spending, since it is much smaller than the roughly $2.2 trillion Biden initially put forward as part of his American Jobs Plan. And they raised concerns that Senate negotiators might have traded away too many of their policy priorities in pursuit of Republican support — perhaps jeopardizing Democratic votes in the process.”
“If they want a bipartisan infrastructure package to have the unified support of the Democratic caucus, those of us who insist on there being serious climate measures at long, long last are going to need specific assurances about how that gets done,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told Tony and SMK of the administration.
“I don’t think there’s going to be a great fervor for a bipartisan deal unless we’re guaranteed that we’re going to have a big bill,” Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) told them.
Full story ($)
2) ‘No climate, no deal’: Progressives threaten bipartisan infrastructure deal
The Washington Times, 16 June 2021
Progressive Democrats are threatening to blow up the bipartisan infrastructure package being debated within the Senate if their aggressive climate change demands are not met.
“It’s time for us to go our own way,” said Sen. Ed Markey, Massachusetts Democrat and the author of the Green New Deal. “We cannot let Republican calls for bipartisanship deny the American people the climate action that they have been demanding.”
Mr. Markey and his allies are mobilizing to kill the bipartisan package if it is not changed to be sufficiently more “green” or secure a guarantee that Congress will push an aggressive climate change package along party lines at a later date.
“If we’re looking at a deal on infrastructure going to the floor that does not have the energy investments in it and in which there has not been a deal worked out on reconciliation to have those energy investments,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, Oregon Democrat. “Then absolutely not, I will not support the package.”
The threat comes as a bipartisan group of 10 lawmakers — led by Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Democrat, and Mitt Romney, Utah Republican — has forged an infrastructure deal they hope is acceptable to all sides.
The proposal, which has yet to secure the support of President Biden or congressional leaders, would allot $1.2 trillion for fixing the nation’s roads and bridges. To the chagrin of progressives, it does not include strong climate change provisions, apart from providing money for electric vehicle charging stations.
“When the ship sails on infrastructure, energy investments cannot be left on the docks,” Mr. Merkley said. “If there is no climate, there is no deal.”
Progressives fear that by accepting the bipartisan package, they will not get another chance at passing infrastructure-related climate change investments.
“Climate action is good policy and it’s good politics,” said Mr. Markey. “Let’s get this done for the American people … otherwise we will fall into the Republican trap of delay and denial that will ultimately harm and perhaps preclude our ability to act in this very important area.”
The prospect that progressives will be able to hold the bipartisan deal hostage for broader promises on climate change is not out of the realm of possibility. Democrats only hold narrow majorities within both houses of Congress.
In the Senate, the parties are split 50-50, while in the House, Democrats have a single-digit majority.
Unless Democrats choose to move infrastructure through the budget reconciliation process, which allows spending bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes, any deal will likely require at least 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.
Complicating matters is that it is unclear how many Republicans will opt to back the bipartisan deal.
Full story
3) Federal judge overturns oil leasing freeze in blow to Biden
E&E News, 16 June 2021
A federal judge ordered new oil and gas leasing to restart in public lands and waters yesterday, reversing the Biden administration’s controversial pause on the sale of drilling rights.
Judge Terry Doughty’s decision allows leasing to resume nationwide, dealing an early loss to President Biden’s push to tackle climate change. The ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana also marks a victory for oil-producing states that have argued the federal oil and gas program supports local jobs and tax revenue.
Doughty’s preliminary injunction, which reverses the pause until the court decides on the substance of the arguments in the case, undercuts part of a sweeping climate-focused executive order Biden issued shortly after taking office. Biden had directed a temporary halt on new lease sales during a review of the federal oil and gas program that could overhaul how the U.S. manages its vast stores of fossil fuels.
“Although there is certainly nothing wrong with performing a comprehensive review, there is a problem in ignoring acts of Congress while the review is being completed,” said Doughty in an opinion late yesterday afternoon.
Doughty, a Trump appointee, said the Interior Department had overstepped its authority to decide whether to offer areas for oil and gas development, citing statutory requirements to lease public land and federal waters. He rejected the Biden administration’s claims that the states had not been able to show harm from the pause.
Full story
E&E News, 16 June 2021
A federal judge ordered new oil and gas leasing to restart in public lands and waters yesterday, reversing the Biden administration’s controversial pause on the sale of drilling rights.
Judge Terry Doughty’s decision allows leasing to resume nationwide, dealing an early loss to President Biden’s push to tackle climate change. The ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana also marks a victory for oil-producing states that have argued the federal oil and gas program supports local jobs and tax revenue.
Doughty’s preliminary injunction, which reverses the pause until the court decides on the substance of the arguments in the case, undercuts part of a sweeping climate-focused executive order Biden issued shortly after taking office. Biden had directed a temporary halt on new lease sales during a review of the federal oil and gas program that could overhaul how the U.S. manages its vast stores of fossil fuels.
“Although there is certainly nothing wrong with performing a comprehensive review, there is a problem in ignoring acts of Congress while the review is being completed,” said Doughty in an opinion late yesterday afternoon.
Doughty, a Trump appointee, said the Interior Department had overstepped its authority to decide whether to offer areas for oil and gas development, citing statutory requirements to lease public land and federal waters. He rejected the Biden administration’s claims that the states had not been able to show harm from the pause.
Full story
4) The worst setback for solar energy in a decade
OilPrice.com, 15 June 2021
As the International Energy Agency (IEA) pushes countries and energy firms away from traditional energy and towards renewables, solar energy production has hit a major hurdle as project prices soar.
A surge in costs for components, labor, and freight for solar developments across the globe, as prices begin to stabilize following a year of pandemic-driven economic instability, has caused many companies to halt operations on their solar projects.
While the IEA and governments around the world are fighting for the development of cleaner energy projects, there is still a significant learning curve in the world of renewables. Unforeseen expenses, such as tripling steel prices, higher freight rates - with ocean freight prices increasing by 100 percent in May - and steep polysilicon and fuel costs, have made giant solar installations far more costly.
Many companies are in wait-and-see mode as they hope solar components and transport costs will gradually stabilize at a lower price than the current spike. In the first quarter of 2021, the contract prices for solar projects in the U.S. were up by around 15 percent on 2020, and these expenses have been rising further in quarter two.
Two of the biggest U.S. solar energy producers, First Solar Inc. and Ormat Technologies have seen their stocks fall significantly since the beginning of the year, with a decrease in share prices of 21 percent and 22 percent respectively.
It’s not only in the U.S. that the solar industry is being affected. In Europe, projects are being delayed in the hope costs will drop. And in China, the world’s biggest solar product manufacturer, companies are increasing component prices to ensure their profit margins are maintained, as production costs rise by as much as 20 to 40 percent.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
This marks a reversal on the decreasing costs for solar modules seen over the last decade, by around 90 percent, before this year’s increase. Jenny Chase, lead solar analyst with clean energy research group BloombergNEF explains, “The disruption to solar hasn’t been this bad in more than a decade.” Further, “Developers and governments are going to have to stop expecting solar to get much cheaper quickly.”
Experts are predicting that as many as 15 percent of utility-scale solar projects could be delayed this year, in response to the increase in costs, reducing capacity additions by over 2.3 GW in 2021.
Full post
OilPrice.com, 15 June 2021
As the International Energy Agency (IEA) pushes countries and energy firms away from traditional energy and towards renewables, solar energy production has hit a major hurdle as project prices soar.
A surge in costs for components, labor, and freight for solar developments across the globe, as prices begin to stabilize following a year of pandemic-driven economic instability, has caused many companies to halt operations on their solar projects.
While the IEA and governments around the world are fighting for the development of cleaner energy projects, there is still a significant learning curve in the world of renewables. Unforeseen expenses, such as tripling steel prices, higher freight rates - with ocean freight prices increasing by 100 percent in May - and steep polysilicon and fuel costs, have made giant solar installations far more costly.
Many companies are in wait-and-see mode as they hope solar components and transport costs will gradually stabilize at a lower price than the current spike. In the first quarter of 2021, the contract prices for solar projects in the U.S. were up by around 15 percent on 2020, and these expenses have been rising further in quarter two.
Two of the biggest U.S. solar energy producers, First Solar Inc. and Ormat Technologies have seen their stocks fall significantly since the beginning of the year, with a decrease in share prices of 21 percent and 22 percent respectively.
It’s not only in the U.S. that the solar industry is being affected. In Europe, projects are being delayed in the hope costs will drop. And in China, the world’s biggest solar product manufacturer, companies are increasing component prices to ensure their profit margins are maintained, as production costs rise by as much as 20 to 40 percent.
CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
This marks a reversal on the decreasing costs for solar modules seen over the last decade, by around 90 percent, before this year’s increase. Jenny Chase, lead solar analyst with clean energy research group BloombergNEF explains, “The disruption to solar hasn’t been this bad in more than a decade.” Further, “Developers and governments are going to have to stop expecting solar to get much cheaper quickly.”
Experts are predicting that as many as 15 percent of utility-scale solar projects could be delayed this year, in response to the increase in costs, reducing capacity additions by over 2.3 GW in 2021.
Full post
5) James Conca: Washington State’s Approaching Energy Crisis
Forbes, 15 June 2021
Washington State has trouble on the horizon – trouble with its electrical grid. Trouble as in not being reliable. Trouble as in risk of rolling blackouts.
The trouble stems from attempts to decarbonize our society. Getting rid of coal, oil and gas in generating electricity is the low-hanging fruit, but just getting rid of them without a realistic plan to replace them can do more harm than good.
Seeing this trouble in Washington State, however, is scary. Besides usually having the lowest cost of electricity in the country, we have never had a big problem with reliability. Washington is one of the most decarbonized states in the union with utilities getting more than two-thirds of their electricity from hydro 8% about 5% from nuclear, 4% from wind, 11% gas and 10% coal, with the latter from a single in-state coal plant as well as imports from neighboring states.
The Washington State Legislature passed the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) in 2019 which requires that all utilities eliminate coal by 2025 and provide carbon neutral electricity by 2030. Many stakeholders, utility officials and industry leaders warned that losing baseload sources like coal would increase the probability of brownouts and blackouts if demand increased, a likely occurrence in the next ten years.
“In our kind of zeal to remove CO2 emissions and aim for this 100% clean energy, we’re creating a reliability crisis, potentially,” Benton County PUD General Manager Rick Dunn told the Lens News. “We need to get more serious about securing our future supply of electricity.”
Dunn warns that Washington faces a large gap between grid demand on the coldest and hottest days and the availability of dependable electrical generation over the next decade. After nearly two decades of relatively flat growth, both annual and peak electricity loads are forecasted to increase in the region by 5 or 6%, even after accounting for increased energy efficiency.
Full post
Forbes, 15 June 2021
Washington State has trouble on the horizon – trouble with its electrical grid. Trouble as in not being reliable. Trouble as in risk of rolling blackouts.
The trouble stems from attempts to decarbonize our society. Getting rid of coal, oil and gas in generating electricity is the low-hanging fruit, but just getting rid of them without a realistic plan to replace them can do more harm than good.
Seeing this trouble in Washington State, however, is scary. Besides usually having the lowest cost of electricity in the country, we have never had a big problem with reliability. Washington is one of the most decarbonized states in the union with utilities getting more than two-thirds of their electricity from hydro 8% about 5% from nuclear, 4% from wind, 11% gas and 10% coal, with the latter from a single in-state coal plant as well as imports from neighboring states.
The Washington State Legislature passed the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) in 2019 which requires that all utilities eliminate coal by 2025 and provide carbon neutral electricity by 2030. Many stakeholders, utility officials and industry leaders warned that losing baseload sources like coal would increase the probability of brownouts and blackouts if demand increased, a likely occurrence in the next ten years.
“In our kind of zeal to remove CO2 emissions and aim for this 100% clean energy, we’re creating a reliability crisis, potentially,” Benton County PUD General Manager Rick Dunn told the Lens News. “We need to get more serious about securing our future supply of electricity.”
Dunn warns that Washington faces a large gap between grid demand on the coldest and hottest days and the availability of dependable electrical generation over the next decade. After nearly two decades of relatively flat growth, both annual and peak electricity loads are forecasted to increase in the region by 5 or 6%, even after accounting for increased energy efficiency.
Full post
6) Scotland's Net Zero fiasco
The Times, 16 June 2021
The Scottish government has missed its own “world-leading” climate change targets for the third year in a row.
Part of the 51.5 per cent fall in emissions against the baseline in 2019, which is short of the 55 per cent target, can be attributed to the fact that the previous year’s figure has also been significantly revised upwards. This means there were more greenhouse gases released in 2018 than previously thought.
Jamie Livingstone, the head of Oxfam Scotland, criticised the failure ahead of the November United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop26). “On the eve of the most significant global climate talks for years being hosted in Glasgow, the Scottish government has scored a hat-trick of own goals by missing its annual emissions targets three years in a row,” he said.
SNP ministers have set a legal target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045, which is five years ahead of the UK government’s ambition. An interim target of 75 per cent by 2030 is also in place, although this is beyond what the climate change committee believes is feasible.
Full story (£)
The Times, 16 June 2021
The Scottish government has missed its own “world-leading” climate change targets for the third year in a row.
Part of the 51.5 per cent fall in emissions against the baseline in 2019, which is short of the 55 per cent target, can be attributed to the fact that the previous year’s figure has also been significantly revised upwards. This means there were more greenhouse gases released in 2018 than previously thought.
Jamie Livingstone, the head of Oxfam Scotland, criticised the failure ahead of the November United Nations Climate Change Conference (Cop26). “On the eve of the most significant global climate talks for years being hosted in Glasgow, the Scottish government has scored a hat-trick of own goals by missing its annual emissions targets three years in a row,” he said.
SNP ministers have set a legal target to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045, which is five years ahead of the UK government’s ambition. An interim target of 75 per cent by 2030 is also in place, although this is beyond what the climate change committee believes is feasible.
Full story (£)
7) Climate alarmists continue to have a big problem: democracy
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2021
Swiss voters reject the costs of meeting the Paris CO2 emissions limits.
Switzerland’s strategy to abide by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has hit a roadblock with a narrow majority of voters rejecting a law to curb greenhouse gases. The CO2 law was rejected on Sunday by 51.6% of voters.
Climate alarmists continue to have a big problem: democracy. Every time voters are presented with something close to the actual costs of achieving draconian CO2 emissions targets, they say no.
The latest reality check came Sunday in Switzerland, where 51.6% of the voters rejected a government scheme to meet the anti-carbon goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. That’s the agreement that President Biden recently rejoined, albeit without the approval of American voters or Congress.
At least the Swiss were honest enough to tell voters that they would have to pay for their climate indulgences with the likes of a surcharge on car fuel costs and a tax on airline tickets. Perhaps most Swiss thought this cost was exorbitant, or useless, since the country contributes only 0.1% to global CO2 emissions. The Swiss could go net-zero on CO2 and it wouldn’t matter a whit to the climate.
This explains why America’s climate left assiduously avoids putting carbon taxes on the ballot. Mr. Biden won’t even endorse indexing the federal gas tax for inflation. Instead the Administration is planning to use regulatory and judicial coercion. Voters understand they will pay for the climate obsessions of elites.
Full editorial & comments
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, 16 June 2021
Swiss voters reject the costs of meeting the Paris CO2 emissions limits.
Switzerland’s strategy to abide by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change has hit a roadblock with a narrow majority of voters rejecting a law to curb greenhouse gases. The CO2 law was rejected on Sunday by 51.6% of voters.
Climate alarmists continue to have a big problem: democracy. Every time voters are presented with something close to the actual costs of achieving draconian CO2 emissions targets, they say no.
The latest reality check came Sunday in Switzerland, where 51.6% of the voters rejected a government scheme to meet the anti-carbon goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. That’s the agreement that President Biden recently rejoined, albeit without the approval of American voters or Congress.
At least the Swiss were honest enough to tell voters that they would have to pay for their climate indulgences with the likes of a surcharge on car fuel costs and a tax on airline tickets. Perhaps most Swiss thought this cost was exorbitant, or useless, since the country contributes only 0.1% to global CO2 emissions. The Swiss could go net-zero on CO2 and it wouldn’t matter a whit to the climate.
This explains why America’s climate left assiduously avoids putting carbon taxes on the ballot. Mr. Biden won’t even endorse indexing the federal gas tax for inflation. Instead the Administration is planning to use regulatory and judicial coercion. Voters understand they will pay for the climate obsessions of elites.
Full editorial & comments
8) Patrick Michaels: The death spiral of American academia
Global Warming Policy Forum, 16 June 2021
Global Warming Policy Forum, 16 June 2021
In this short but important essay, Patrick Michaels, himself the target of campaigns by politically motivated colleagues, reviews the successful campaign by left-wing extremists to force those on the right of politics out of universities. He paints a pessimistic picture of the future of US academia, warning that it risks becoming irrelevant.
The essay can be downloaded here (pdf).
9) Anna I. Krylov: The Peril of Politicizing Science
J. Phys. Chem. Lett. June 2021
It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
–George Orwell, 1984
I grew up in a city that in its short history (barely over 150 years) had its name changed three times.(2,3) Founded in 1869 around a steel plant and several coal mines built by the Welsh industrialist John Hughes, the settlement was originally called Hughesovka (or Yuzovka). When the Bolsheviks came to power in the 1917 Revolution, the new government of the working class, the Soviets, set out to purge the country of ideologically impure influences in the name of the proletariat and the worldwide struggle of the suppressed masses. Cities and geographical landmarks were renamed,(4) statues were torn down, books were burned, and many millions were jailed and murdered.(5) In due course, the commissars got to Yuzovka, and the city was stripped of the name of its founder, a representative of the hostile class of oppressors and a Westerner. In modern terms, Hughes was canceled. For a few months, the city was called Trotsk (after Leon Trotsky), until Trotsky lost in the power struggle inside the party and was himself canceled (see Figure 1). In 1924 the city became the namesake of the new supreme leader of the Communist Party (Stalin), and a few years later renamed to Stalino. My mother’s school certificates have Stalino on them. Following Stalin’s death in 1953, the Communist party underwent some reckoning and admitted that several decades of terror and many millions of murdered citizens were somewhat excessive. Stalin was canceled: his body was removed from the Mausoleum at Red Square (where it had been displayed next to Lenin’s); textbooks and encyclopedias were rewritten once again; and the cities, institutions, and landmarks bearing his name were promptly renamed. Stalino became Donetsk, after the river Severskii Donets.
Figure 1
I came of age during a relatively mellow period of the Soviet rule, post-Stalin. Still, the ideology permeated all aspects of life, and survival required strict adherence to the party line and enthusiastic displays of ideologically proper behavior. Not joining a young communist organization (Komsomol) would be career suicide—nonmembers were barred from higher education. Openly practicing religion could lead to more grim consequences, up to imprisonment. So could reading the wrong book (Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.). Even a poetry book that was not on the state-approved list could get one in trouble.
Mere compliance was not sufficient—the ideology committees were constantly on the lookout for individuals whose support of the regime was not sufficiently enthusiastic. It was not uncommon to get disciplined for being too quiet during mandatory political assemblies (politinformation or komsomolskoe sobranie) or for showing up late to mandatory mass-celebrations (such as the May or November demonstrations). Once I got a notice for promoting an imperialistic agenda by showing up in jeans for an informal school event. A friend’s dossier was permanently blemished—making him ineligible for Ph.D. programs—for not fully participating in a trip required of university students: an act of “voluntary” help to comrades in collective farms (Figure 2).
Science was not spared from this strict ideological control.(6) Western influences were considered to be dangerous. Textbooks and scientific papers tirelessly emphasized the priority and pre-eminence of Russian and Soviet science. Entire disciplines were declared ideologically impure, reactionary, and hostile to the cause of working-class dominance and the World Revolution. Notable examples of “bourgeois pseudo-science” included genetics and cybernetics. Quantum mechanics and general relativity were also criticized for insufficient alignment with dialectic materialism.
Most relevant to chemistry was the antiresonance campaign (1949–1951).(7) The theory of resonating structures, which brought Linus Pauling the Nobel prize in 1954, was deemed to be bourgeois pseudoscience. Scientists who attempted to defend the merits of the theory and its utility for understanding chemical structures were accused of “cosmopolitism” (Western sympathy) and servility to Western bourgeois science. Some lost jobs. Two high-profile supporters of resonance theory, Syrkin and Dyatkina, were eventually forced to confess their ideological sins and to publicly denounce resonance. Meanwhile, other members of the community took this political purge as an opportunity to advance at the expense of others.(7,8) As noted by many scholars,(7,8) including Pauling himself,(9) the grassroots antiresonance campaign was driven by people who were “displeased with the alignment of forces in their science”.(7) This is a recurring motif in all political campaigns within science in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and McCarthy’s America—those who are “on the right side” of the issue can jump a few rungs and take the place of those who were canceled. By the time I studied quantum chemistry at Moscow State University, resonance theory had been rehabilitated. Yet, the history of the campaign and the injustices it entailed were not discussed in the open—the Party did not welcome conversations about its past mistakes. I remember hearing parts of the story, narrated under someone’s breath at a party after copious amounts of alcohol had loosened a tongue.
Fast forward to 2021—another century. The Cold War is a distant memory and the country shown on my birth certificate and school and university diplomas, the USSR, is no longer on the map. But I find myself experiencing its legacy some thousands of miles to the west, as if I am living in an Orwellian twilight zone. I witness ever-increasing attempts to subject science and education to ideological control and censorship. Just as in Soviet times, the censorship is being justified by the greater good. Whereas in 1950, the greater good was advancing the World Revolution (in the USSR; in the USA the greater good meant fighting Communism), in 2021 the greater good is “Social Justice” (the capitalization is important: “Social Justice” is a specific ideology, with goals that have little in common with what lower-case “social justice” means in plain English).(10−12) As in the USSR, the censorship is enthusiastically imposed also from the bottom, by members of the scientific community, whose motives vary from naive idealism to cynical power-grabbing.
Just as during the time of the Great Terror,(5,13) dangerous conspiracies and plots against the World Revolution were seen everywhere, from illustrations in children’s books to hairstyles and fashions; today we are told that racism, patriarchy, misogyny, and other reprehensible ideas are encoded in scientific terms, names of equations, and in plain English words. We are told that in order to build a better world and to address societal inequalities, we need to purge our literature of the names of people whose personal records are not up to the high standards of the self-anointed bearers of the new truth, the Elect.(11) We are told that we need to rewrite our syllabi and change the way we teach and speak.
The essay can be downloaded here (pdf).
9) Anna I. Krylov: The Peril of Politicizing Science
J. Phys. Chem. Lett. June 2021
It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.
Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.
–George Orwell, 1984
I grew up in a city that in its short history (barely over 150 years) had its name changed three times.(2,3) Founded in 1869 around a steel plant and several coal mines built by the Welsh industrialist John Hughes, the settlement was originally called Hughesovka (or Yuzovka). When the Bolsheviks came to power in the 1917 Revolution, the new government of the working class, the Soviets, set out to purge the country of ideologically impure influences in the name of the proletariat and the worldwide struggle of the suppressed masses. Cities and geographical landmarks were renamed,(4) statues were torn down, books were burned, and many millions were jailed and murdered.(5) In due course, the commissars got to Yuzovka, and the city was stripped of the name of its founder, a representative of the hostile class of oppressors and a Westerner. In modern terms, Hughes was canceled. For a few months, the city was called Trotsk (after Leon Trotsky), until Trotsky lost in the power struggle inside the party and was himself canceled (see Figure 1). In 1924 the city became the namesake of the new supreme leader of the Communist Party (Stalin), and a few years later renamed to Stalino. My mother’s school certificates have Stalino on them. Following Stalin’s death in 1953, the Communist party underwent some reckoning and admitted that several decades of terror and many millions of murdered citizens were somewhat excessive. Stalin was canceled: his body was removed from the Mausoleum at Red Square (where it had been displayed next to Lenin’s); textbooks and encyclopedias were rewritten once again; and the cities, institutions, and landmarks bearing his name were promptly renamed. Stalino became Donetsk, after the river Severskii Donets.
Figure 1
I came of age during a relatively mellow period of the Soviet rule, post-Stalin. Still, the ideology permeated all aspects of life, and survival required strict adherence to the party line and enthusiastic displays of ideologically proper behavior. Not joining a young communist organization (Komsomol) would be career suicide—nonmembers were barred from higher education. Openly practicing religion could lead to more grim consequences, up to imprisonment. So could reading the wrong book (Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.). Even a poetry book that was not on the state-approved list could get one in trouble.
Mere compliance was not sufficient—the ideology committees were constantly on the lookout for individuals whose support of the regime was not sufficiently enthusiastic. It was not uncommon to get disciplined for being too quiet during mandatory political assemblies (politinformation or komsomolskoe sobranie) or for showing up late to mandatory mass-celebrations (such as the May or November demonstrations). Once I got a notice for promoting an imperialistic agenda by showing up in jeans for an informal school event. A friend’s dossier was permanently blemished—making him ineligible for Ph.D. programs—for not fully participating in a trip required of university students: an act of “voluntary” help to comrades in collective farms (Figure 2).
Science was not spared from this strict ideological control.(6) Western influences were considered to be dangerous. Textbooks and scientific papers tirelessly emphasized the priority and pre-eminence of Russian and Soviet science. Entire disciplines were declared ideologically impure, reactionary, and hostile to the cause of working-class dominance and the World Revolution. Notable examples of “bourgeois pseudo-science” included genetics and cybernetics. Quantum mechanics and general relativity were also criticized for insufficient alignment with dialectic materialism.
Most relevant to chemistry was the antiresonance campaign (1949–1951).(7) The theory of resonating structures, which brought Linus Pauling the Nobel prize in 1954, was deemed to be bourgeois pseudoscience. Scientists who attempted to defend the merits of the theory and its utility for understanding chemical structures were accused of “cosmopolitism” (Western sympathy) and servility to Western bourgeois science. Some lost jobs. Two high-profile supporters of resonance theory, Syrkin and Dyatkina, were eventually forced to confess their ideological sins and to publicly denounce resonance. Meanwhile, other members of the community took this political purge as an opportunity to advance at the expense of others.(7,8) As noted by many scholars,(7,8) including Pauling himself,(9) the grassroots antiresonance campaign was driven by people who were “displeased with the alignment of forces in their science”.(7) This is a recurring motif in all political campaigns within science in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and McCarthy’s America—those who are “on the right side” of the issue can jump a few rungs and take the place of those who were canceled. By the time I studied quantum chemistry at Moscow State University, resonance theory had been rehabilitated. Yet, the history of the campaign and the injustices it entailed were not discussed in the open—the Party did not welcome conversations about its past mistakes. I remember hearing parts of the story, narrated under someone’s breath at a party after copious amounts of alcohol had loosened a tongue.
Fast forward to 2021—another century. The Cold War is a distant memory and the country shown on my birth certificate and school and university diplomas, the USSR, is no longer on the map. But I find myself experiencing its legacy some thousands of miles to the west, as if I am living in an Orwellian twilight zone. I witness ever-increasing attempts to subject science and education to ideological control and censorship. Just as in Soviet times, the censorship is being justified by the greater good. Whereas in 1950, the greater good was advancing the World Revolution (in the USSR; in the USA the greater good meant fighting Communism), in 2021 the greater good is “Social Justice” (the capitalization is important: “Social Justice” is a specific ideology, with goals that have little in common with what lower-case “social justice” means in plain English).(10−12) As in the USSR, the censorship is enthusiastically imposed also from the bottom, by members of the scientific community, whose motives vary from naive idealism to cynical power-grabbing.
Just as during the time of the Great Terror,(5,13) dangerous conspiracies and plots against the World Revolution were seen everywhere, from illustrations in children’s books to hairstyles and fashions; today we are told that racism, patriarchy, misogyny, and other reprehensible ideas are encoded in scientific terms, names of equations, and in plain English words. We are told that in order to build a better world and to address societal inequalities, we need to purge our literature of the names of people whose personal records are not up to the high standards of the self-anointed bearers of the new truth, the Elect.(11) We are told that we need to rewrite our syllabi and change the way we teach and speak.
10) And finally: Oil likely to hit $100 a barrel, say top commodity traders
Financial Times, 15 June 2021
The world’s top commodity traders have forecast a return to $100-a-barrel oil, as investment in new supplies slows down before demand has peaked and before green alternatives can take up the slack.
Executives from Vitol, Glencore and Trafigura and Goldman Sachs said on Tuesday that $100 crude was a real possibility, with prices already reaching their highest level in two years this week as Brent crude moved above $73 a barrel.
The prediction comes at a time when concern about inflation is rising and many commodities, such as copper, have already reached record highs, boosted by supply shortfalls as the economic recovery gathers pace.
Oil has lagged behind because of a slowdown in demand during the coronavirus pandemic and fears demand could peak in the next decade. But predictions that prices will move much higher in the next few years have gained momentum in recent weeks.
Jeremy Weir, executive chair of Trafigura, one of the world’s largest independent oil traders, told the FT Commodities Global Summit on Tuesday that he was “concerned” by the lack of spending on new supply because the world was not ready to make the leap to clean energy and complete electrification.
“I actually think that there is a chance for oil to get up to those numbers,” he told the summit. “The issue for oil is not demand . . . the supply situation is quite concerning. We’ve gone from 15 years of reserves to 10 years. We’ve seen capital expenditure go from five years ago at $400bn a year to just $100bn a year. So therefore, there is a concern on the supply side . . . that I think will probably drive prices higher.”
Alex Sanna, the top oil trader at Glencore, also said that $100 oil was looking more likely.
“If you’re cutting supply without at the same time addressing your demand that is when you can get price dislocations,” Sanna said. “You’re really only one or two events away from a material spike in oil prices.”
Oil has not traded above $100 a barrel since 2014, when a surge in supplies from the US shale sector brought the last so-called supercycle to an end. At the start of this century oil prices rallied from near $10 a barrel to reach above $100 in 2008, boosted by growing Chinese demand. Prices, while volatile, averaged around $100 a barrel for the next six years.
Russell Hardy, chief executive of Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil trader, said $100 oil was a “possibility”, though he believes there should be enough spare capacity, with Opec and allies such as Russia still restricting supplies because of the pandemic.
“There’s 5m barrels of spare production being held back from the market today,” Hardy said.
But Jeff Currie at Goldman Sachs, one of the big proponents of oil’s rally last decade, has argued that commodities are looking at a new supercycle as government stimulus measures boost demand.
He believes oil demand will rise because policymakers will use spending on huge green infrastructure projects as stimulus measures aimed at tackling inequality.
“We argue that every $2 trillion of green capex spend is worth about 200,000 barrels per day of oil demand,” he said.
Hardy at Vitol said the trading house believed oil demand would peak around 2030 but that at first demand would not fall sharply initially, instead plateauing well above the 100m barrels a day level it first reached in 2019.
The key period for the risk of an oil supply gap was between 2025 to 2030, he said, and that because of growth in the developing world it would take until 2040 for global oil demand to start falling rapidly.
“Oil demand will probably carry on growing till 2030, obviously dominated by non-OECD and developing markets,” he said.
Marco Dunand, co-founder of Mercuria, said he expected oil demand to recover to pre-pandemic levels and reach bit a bit over 100m b/d by the year’s end, while Torbjörn Törnqvist, chairman of Gunvor, agreed that $100 oil could return and that high prices were needed to incentivise investment in the industry.
Some of the largest oil producers such as BP and Royal Dutch Shell have said their oil production will start to taper in the coming years as they shift investments towards greener forms of energy under pressure from investors.
Full story ($)
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
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.