In this newsletter:
1) Biden lands in Europe empty-handed as radical left blocks infrastructure vote
Fox News, 29 October 2021
2) Biden flies to Europe empty-handed after chaotic day on Capitol Hill
The Daily Beast, 28 October 2021
3) COP26: Biden & Boris plan to banish coal. Asia is building hundreds of power plants to burn it
Reuters, 29 October 2021
4) India rejects Net Zero emissions target as Modi heads to COP26 climate talks
CNBC, 29 October 2021
5) Gosh. Who would have thought? China hurries to burn more coal, putting climate goals at risk
The New York Times, 28 October 2021
6) COP26 – What are China’s real intentions?
Net Zero Watch Webinar
7) New report details China’s energy expansionism and its threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific
Institute for Energy Research, 26 October 2021
8) Kimberley A. Strassel: The left’s climate humiliation
The Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2021
9) Ross Clark: COP26 is set to be an appalling display of Western decadence
The Daily Telegraph, 29 October 2021
10) Tom Switzer: Net Zero By 2050? Don’t Plan on It
The Wall Street Journal, 28 October 2021
Full details:
1) Biden lands in Europe empty-handed as radical left blocks infrastructure vote
Fox News, 29 October 2021
President Biden landed in Rome early Friday morning empty handed on his domestic legislative agenda after pushing for a quick vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. But a key concession from progressives may mean it has a good chance to pass next month.
Fox News, 29 October 2021
President Biden landed in Rome early Friday morning empty handed on his domestic legislative agenda after pushing for a quick vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. But a key concession from progressives may mean it has a good chance to pass next month.
President Biden is going to a climate summit in Glasgow next week without either the bipartisan infrastructure bill or the reconciliation bill passed.
The House will come back next week to resume work on the reconciliation and infrastructure bills, as progressives demand the Senate commit to passing Biden's $1.75T reconciliation framework
Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both spoke positively about the president's framework Thursday, but neither would commit to voting for it
Full story
2) Biden flies to COP26 empty-handed after chaotic day on Capitol Hill
The Daily Beast, 28 October 2021
Joe Biden wanted a win that he could tout at the high-stakes UN climate conference in Scotland this weekend. Now, it looks like he’ll arrive empty-handed.
With his agenda in peril in advance of an international climate summit, President Joe Biden came to Capitol Hill on Thursday and pleaded with House Democrats to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill—to prove to the world that American democracy actually can work.
The scene inside the closed-door meeting became so earnestly patriotic and rah-rah that, in between cheers for the president, some lawmakers broke into a chant of “Vote! Vote! Vote!”
But as soon as Biden left the Capitol and boarded Air Force One en route to Europe, the impromptu episode of The West Wing ended. Lawmakers snapped back to the realities of American democracy. And it was a mess.
Over the next few hours, the familiar drama that has pitted factions of the Democratic Party against each other—or, more specifically, the vast majority of the Democratic Party against two Democratic senators—entered its chaotic third act.
By late Thursday morning, the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s team revved up a push to get at least 218 Democrats to vote for the infrastructure bill. Vice President Kamala Harris began calling House progressives to try to get the infrastructure bill over the finish line, according to a source.
A White House official confirmed that account, telling The Daily Beast that “throughout the day,” Harris “has been making calls to House Democratic members about the [Build Back Better Act] framework.”
Pelosi’s leadership team also began whipping the legislation—something they didn’t do a month ago when the infrastructure bill was first supposed to pass the House.
But the whipping efforts quickly collided with the truth that there aren’t 218 Democrats ready to pass that bill without stronger assurances from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) that they would in turn pass the other plank of Biden’s agenda.
That plank, a $1.75 trillion social spending package, looks to be moving toward completion. But Manchin and Sinema have only offered tepid support—Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) said Thursday they were speaking in “hieroglyphics”—and progressives are resolute that they won’t budge on the infrastructure bill until Manchin and Sinema fully back the legislation.
With progressives and the two senators at an impasse, House leaders conceded that neither bill would pass this week. After a day of uncertainty, lawmakers voted on an extension of expiring transportations programs that would have otherwise been taken care of in the infrastructure bill.
With that, the legislative chaos of the day was over. House Democrats continued with a hearing on their 1,684 page bill, even though that meeting was now unnecessary at the moment. Senators, as they’re wont to do on Thursdays, left town. And the House quickly followed suit.
The path ahead now remains unclear. One lawmaker said as many as 40 Democrats are prepared to vote down the infrastructure bill if an agreement with Manchin and Sinema is not reached. And a statement from the Progressive Caucus reaffirmed that a number of members in that group wouldn’t vote for the infrastructure measure without stronger assurances.
The problem is, however, that the two senators everyone is waiting on don’t seem any closer to declaring their support in a firmer way. Nor do they seem inclined to explain much of their position.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said neither of them sees that their ambiguity is feeding other Democrats’ belief that they are not interested in passing the broader package.
“They don’t feel there’s anything more they need to say,” Coons told reporters.
In the interim, the back-and-forth is raising the blood pressure of Democrats who desperately want to get this agenda enacted.
Democrats believed Biden wanted a win that he could tout at a high-stakes international climate conference in Scotland this weekend. Now, it looks like he’ll arrive empty-handed.
The House will come back next week to resume work on the reconciliation and infrastructure bills, as progressives demand the Senate commit to passing Biden's $1.75T reconciliation framework
Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both spoke positively about the president's framework Thursday, but neither would commit to voting for it
Full story
2) Biden flies to COP26 empty-handed after chaotic day on Capitol Hill
The Daily Beast, 28 October 2021
Joe Biden wanted a win that he could tout at the high-stakes UN climate conference in Scotland this weekend. Now, it looks like he’ll arrive empty-handed.
With his agenda in peril in advance of an international climate summit, President Joe Biden came to Capitol Hill on Thursday and pleaded with House Democrats to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill—to prove to the world that American democracy actually can work.
The scene inside the closed-door meeting became so earnestly patriotic and rah-rah that, in between cheers for the president, some lawmakers broke into a chant of “Vote! Vote! Vote!”
But as soon as Biden left the Capitol and boarded Air Force One en route to Europe, the impromptu episode of The West Wing ended. Lawmakers snapped back to the realities of American democracy. And it was a mess.
Over the next few hours, the familiar drama that has pitted factions of the Democratic Party against each other—or, more specifically, the vast majority of the Democratic Party against two Democratic senators—entered its chaotic third act.
By late Thursday morning, the White House and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s team revved up a push to get at least 218 Democrats to vote for the infrastructure bill. Vice President Kamala Harris began calling House progressives to try to get the infrastructure bill over the finish line, according to a source.
A White House official confirmed that account, telling The Daily Beast that “throughout the day,” Harris “has been making calls to House Democratic members about the [Build Back Better Act] framework.”
Pelosi’s leadership team also began whipping the legislation—something they didn’t do a month ago when the infrastructure bill was first supposed to pass the House.
But the whipping efforts quickly collided with the truth that there aren’t 218 Democrats ready to pass that bill without stronger assurances from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) that they would in turn pass the other plank of Biden’s agenda.
That plank, a $1.75 trillion social spending package, looks to be moving toward completion. But Manchin and Sinema have only offered tepid support—Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) said Thursday they were speaking in “hieroglyphics”—and progressives are resolute that they won’t budge on the infrastructure bill until Manchin and Sinema fully back the legislation.
With progressives and the two senators at an impasse, House leaders conceded that neither bill would pass this week. After a day of uncertainty, lawmakers voted on an extension of expiring transportations programs that would have otherwise been taken care of in the infrastructure bill.
With that, the legislative chaos of the day was over. House Democrats continued with a hearing on their 1,684 page bill, even though that meeting was now unnecessary at the moment. Senators, as they’re wont to do on Thursdays, left town. And the House quickly followed suit.
The path ahead now remains unclear. One lawmaker said as many as 40 Democrats are prepared to vote down the infrastructure bill if an agreement with Manchin and Sinema is not reached. And a statement from the Progressive Caucus reaffirmed that a number of members in that group wouldn’t vote for the infrastructure measure without stronger assurances.
The problem is, however, that the two senators everyone is waiting on don’t seem any closer to declaring their support in a firmer way. Nor do they seem inclined to explain much of their position.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) said neither of them sees that their ambiguity is feeding other Democrats’ belief that they are not interested in passing the broader package.
“They don’t feel there’s anything more they need to say,” Coons told reporters.
In the interim, the back-and-forth is raising the blood pressure of Democrats who desperately want to get this agenda enacted.
Democrats believed Biden wanted a win that he could tout at a high-stakes international climate conference in Scotland this weekend. Now, it looks like he’ll arrive empty-handed.
3) COP26: Biden & Boris plan to banish coal. Asia is building hundreds of power plants to burn it
Reuters, 29 October 2021
Coal remains the world's leading power-generation fuel. Asian governments say coal is needed for economic growth
Reuters, 29 October 2021
Coal remains the world's leading power-generation fuel. Asian governments say coal is needed for economic growth
UDANGUDI, India/TOKYO, Oct 29 (Reuters) - On the coastline near India's southern tip, workers toil on a pier carrying a conveyor belt that cuts a mile into the Indian Ocean where the azure waters are deep enough for ships to berth and unload huge cargoes of coal.
The belt will carry millions of tonnes of coal each year to a giant power plant several kilometres inland that will burn the fuel for at least 30 years to generate power for the more than 70 million people that live in India's Tamil Nadu state.
The Udangudi plant is one of nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
This new fleet will produce planet-warming emissions for decades and is a measure of the challenge world leaders face when they meet for climate talks in Glasgow, where they hope to sound the death knell for coal as a source of power.
Coal use is one of the many issues dividing industrialised and developing countries as they seek to tackle climate change.
Many industrialised countries have been shutting down coal plants for years to reduce emissions. The United States alone has retired 301 plants since 2000.
But in Asia, home to 60% of the world's population and about half of global manufacturing, coal's use is growing rather than shrinking as rapidly developing countries seek to meet booming demand for power.
More than 90% of the 195 coal plants being built around the world are in Asia, according to data from GEM.
Tamil Nadu is India's second-most industrialised state and is one of the country's top renewable energy producers.
But it is also building the most coal-fired plants in the country.
"We cannot depend on just solar and wind," a senior official at Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corp told Reuters.
"You can have the cake of coal and an icing of solar," he said, declining to be named as he was not authorised to speak to media.
Coal-fired power plants in operation, construction and in permit phase by country
HOOKED ON COAL
Despite dramatic jumps in renewable energy output, the global economy remains hooked on coal for electricity. In Asia, coal's share of the generation mix is twice the global average - especially in surging economies such as India.
In 2020, more than 35% of the world's power came from coal, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Roughly 25% came from natural gas, 16% from hydro dams, 10% from nuclear and 12% from renewables like solar and wind.
This year, coal demand is set for a new record, driving prices to all-time highs and contributing to a worldwide scramble for fuel.
Record coal demand is contributing to a rapid rise in emissions in 2021 after a fall last year, when restrictions on movement for billions of people to slow the pandemic caused fuel use to plummet.
While some of the new coal plants under construction will replace older, more polluting stations, together they will add to total emissions.
"The completion of the capacity that is already under construction in these countries will drive up coal demand and emissions," said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clear Air.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the new plants alone will be close to 28 billion tonnes over their 30-year lifespans, according to GEM.
That's not far off the 32 billion tonnes of total worldwide CO2 emissions from all sources in 2020, according to BP, highlighting how tough it will be for leaders gathering in Glasgow - including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi - to make meaningful progress on climate change.
India's Environment Secretary Rameshwar Prasad Gupta told Reuters in a recent interview that India was on track to reach its target of cutting back the country's carbon footprint, and with that coal, too, would fall - but it cannot be abolished.
"Look, every country has its strengths. We have coal, we have to depend on it," Gupta said.
"Our position is once you take up targets of reducing carbon intensity, that will have impact ... Leave it to us whether we do it in coal, or somewhere else."
Anil Swarup, a former Coal Secretary, took the same line in an interview. "Renewable energy expansion is critical, but coal will remain India's main energy source for the next 15 years at least, and production needs to be ramped up to address our energy needs," he said.
CHINA CRUNCH
Across India, 281 coal plants are operating and beyond the 28 being built another 23 are in pre-construction phases, GEM data show.
These numbers are dwarfed by China, the top global coal miner, consumer and emitter, whose leader, President Xi Jinping, is not expected to attend COP26. More than 1,000 coal plants are in operation, almost 240 planned or already under construction.
Together, coal plants in the world's second-largest economy will emit 170 billion tonnes of carbon in their lifetime - more than all global CO2 emissions between 2016 and 2020, BP data show.
Despite also boasting the world's largest renewables capacity, China is now suffering a major energy crunch and has urged coal miners to raise output.
That's likely to boost coal consumption in the near term, even though China plans to reduce coal use from 2026.
Even so, total global coal consumption looks set to rise, driven by accelerating use in South and Southeast Asia, where projects under construction will raise coal-burning capacity by 17% and 26% respectively.
Full story
4) India rejects Net Zero emissions target as Modi heads to COP26 climate talks
CNBC, 29 October 2021
India rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target this week, ahead of the U.N.’s global climate talks, where world leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be gathered.
Despite mounting international pressure, India’s environment secretary R.P. Gupta announced that net zero was not the solution to the climate crisis, Reuters reported Wednesday.
“It is how much carbon you are going to put in the atmosphere before reaching net zero that is more important,” Gupta reportedly said.
Full story
5) Gosh. Who would have thought? China hurries to burn more coal, putting climate goals at risk
The New York Times, 28 October 2021
Faced with electricity shortages, the country is racing to expand mining despite risks to the environment, miner safety and the economy.
The belt will carry millions of tonnes of coal each year to a giant power plant several kilometres inland that will burn the fuel for at least 30 years to generate power for the more than 70 million people that live in India's Tamil Nadu state.
The Udangudi plant is one of nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM).
This new fleet will produce planet-warming emissions for decades and is a measure of the challenge world leaders face when they meet for climate talks in Glasgow, where they hope to sound the death knell for coal as a source of power.
Coal use is one of the many issues dividing industrialised and developing countries as they seek to tackle climate change.
Many industrialised countries have been shutting down coal plants for years to reduce emissions. The United States alone has retired 301 plants since 2000.
But in Asia, home to 60% of the world's population and about half of global manufacturing, coal's use is growing rather than shrinking as rapidly developing countries seek to meet booming demand for power.
More than 90% of the 195 coal plants being built around the world are in Asia, according to data from GEM.
Tamil Nadu is India's second-most industrialised state and is one of the country's top renewable energy producers.
But it is also building the most coal-fired plants in the country.
"We cannot depend on just solar and wind," a senior official at Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corp told Reuters.
"You can have the cake of coal and an icing of solar," he said, declining to be named as he was not authorised to speak to media.
Coal-fired power plants in operation, construction and in permit phase by country
HOOKED ON COAL
Despite dramatic jumps in renewable energy output, the global economy remains hooked on coal for electricity. In Asia, coal's share of the generation mix is twice the global average - especially in surging economies such as India.
In 2020, more than 35% of the world's power came from coal, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Roughly 25% came from natural gas, 16% from hydro dams, 10% from nuclear and 12% from renewables like solar and wind.
This year, coal demand is set for a new record, driving prices to all-time highs and contributing to a worldwide scramble for fuel.
Record coal demand is contributing to a rapid rise in emissions in 2021 after a fall last year, when restrictions on movement for billions of people to slow the pandemic caused fuel use to plummet.
While some of the new coal plants under construction will replace older, more polluting stations, together they will add to total emissions.
"The completion of the capacity that is already under construction in these countries will drive up coal demand and emissions," said Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clear Air.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the new plants alone will be close to 28 billion tonnes over their 30-year lifespans, according to GEM.
That's not far off the 32 billion tonnes of total worldwide CO2 emissions from all sources in 2020, according to BP, highlighting how tough it will be for leaders gathering in Glasgow - including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi - to make meaningful progress on climate change.
India's Environment Secretary Rameshwar Prasad Gupta told Reuters in a recent interview that India was on track to reach its target of cutting back the country's carbon footprint, and with that coal, too, would fall - but it cannot be abolished.
"Look, every country has its strengths. We have coal, we have to depend on it," Gupta said.
"Our position is once you take up targets of reducing carbon intensity, that will have impact ... Leave it to us whether we do it in coal, or somewhere else."
Anil Swarup, a former Coal Secretary, took the same line in an interview. "Renewable energy expansion is critical, but coal will remain India's main energy source for the next 15 years at least, and production needs to be ramped up to address our energy needs," he said.
CHINA CRUNCH
Across India, 281 coal plants are operating and beyond the 28 being built another 23 are in pre-construction phases, GEM data show.
These numbers are dwarfed by China, the top global coal miner, consumer and emitter, whose leader, President Xi Jinping, is not expected to attend COP26. More than 1,000 coal plants are in operation, almost 240 planned or already under construction.
Together, coal plants in the world's second-largest economy will emit 170 billion tonnes of carbon in their lifetime - more than all global CO2 emissions between 2016 and 2020, BP data show.
Despite also boasting the world's largest renewables capacity, China is now suffering a major energy crunch and has urged coal miners to raise output.
That's likely to boost coal consumption in the near term, even though China plans to reduce coal use from 2026.
Even so, total global coal consumption looks set to rise, driven by accelerating use in South and Southeast Asia, where projects under construction will raise coal-burning capacity by 17% and 26% respectively.
Full story
4) India rejects Net Zero emissions target as Modi heads to COP26 climate talks
CNBC, 29 October 2021
India rejected calls to announce a net zero carbon emissions target this week, ahead of the U.N.’s global climate talks, where world leaders including Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be gathered.
Despite mounting international pressure, India’s environment secretary R.P. Gupta announced that net zero was not the solution to the climate crisis, Reuters reported Wednesday.
“It is how much carbon you are going to put in the atmosphere before reaching net zero that is more important,” Gupta reportedly said.
Full story
5) Gosh. Who would have thought? China hurries to burn more coal, putting climate goals at risk
The New York Times, 28 October 2021
Faced with electricity shortages, the country is racing to expand mining despite risks to the environment, miner safety and the economy.
LINFEN, China — Desperate to meet its electricity needs, China is opening up new coal production exceeding what all of Western Europe mines in a year, at a tremendous cost to the global effort to fight climate change.
The campaign has unleashed a flurry of activity in China’s coal country. Idled mines are restarting. Cottage-sized yellow backhoes are clearing and widening roads past terraced cornfields. Long columns of bright red freight trucks are converging on the region to haul the extra cargo.
China’s push will carry a high cost. Burning coal, already the world’s single biggest cause of human-driven climate change, will increase China’s emissions and toxic air pollution. It will endanger the lives of coal miners. And it could impose a long-term cost on the Chinese economy, even while helping short-term growth.
World leaders are gathering next week in Glasgow to discuss ways to halt climate change. But China’s extra coal by itself would increase humanity’s output of planet-warming carbon dioxide by a full percentage point, said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.
“The timing is horrible, coming right before the climate summit,” he said. “Let’s hope it’s just a temporary measure to mitigate the current energy crisis.”
Beijing’s leaders are determined to provide ample coal this winter to power China’s factories and heat its homes. Widespread electricity shortages, caused partly by coal shortages, nearly paralyzed many industrial cities three weeks ago.
China is expanding mines to produce 220 million metric tons a year of extra coal, a nearly 6 percent rise from last year. China already digs up and burns more coal than the rest of the world combined.
The effort is infused with patriotism. “Guarantee the supply” has become a national slogan, appearing frequently now in state media and official statements and even on red banners on the front of coal trucks.
Full story ($)
The campaign has unleashed a flurry of activity in China’s coal country. Idled mines are restarting. Cottage-sized yellow backhoes are clearing and widening roads past terraced cornfields. Long columns of bright red freight trucks are converging on the region to haul the extra cargo.
China’s push will carry a high cost. Burning coal, already the world’s single biggest cause of human-driven climate change, will increase China’s emissions and toxic air pollution. It will endanger the lives of coal miners. And it could impose a long-term cost on the Chinese economy, even while helping short-term growth.
World leaders are gathering next week in Glasgow to discuss ways to halt climate change. But China’s extra coal by itself would increase humanity’s output of planet-warming carbon dioxide by a full percentage point, said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo.
“The timing is horrible, coming right before the climate summit,” he said. “Let’s hope it’s just a temporary measure to mitigate the current energy crisis.”
Beijing’s leaders are determined to provide ample coal this winter to power China’s factories and heat its homes. Widespread electricity shortages, caused partly by coal shortages, nearly paralyzed many industrial cities three weeks ago.
China is expanding mines to produce 220 million metric tons a year of extra coal, a nearly 6 percent rise from last year. China already digs up and burns more coal than the rest of the world combined.
The effort is infused with patriotism. “Guarantee the supply” has become a national slogan, appearing frequently now in state media and official statements and even on red banners on the front of coal trucks.
Full story ($)
6) COP26 – What are China’s real intentions?
Net Zero Watch Webinar
Net Zero Watch Webinar
Click here to watch the full webinar
China has been keen to emphasise its ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and has announced a target to achieve a 65% reduction in the emissions intensity of its economy by 2030.
However, some analysts have suggested that all is not as it seems. While Xi Jinping has been keen to talk up China’s green credentials, he has been happy to allow the construction of a spate of new coal power stations. He has also been clear that China will not allow itself to be dictated to by the West, and has refused to attend COP26 in person.
What does China really want? Joining Net Zero Watch’s Harry Wilkinson to discuss this vital topic are Professor Jun Arima, David Rose, Professor Gwythian Prins and Patricia Adams.
You can watch a full recording of the webinar here
China has been keen to emphasise its ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 and has announced a target to achieve a 65% reduction in the emissions intensity of its economy by 2030.
However, some analysts have suggested that all is not as it seems. While Xi Jinping has been keen to talk up China’s green credentials, he has been happy to allow the construction of a spate of new coal power stations. He has also been clear that China will not allow itself to be dictated to by the West, and has refused to attend COP26 in person.
What does China really want? Joining Net Zero Watch’s Harry Wilkinson to discuss this vital topic are Professor Jun Arima, David Rose, Professor Gwythian Prins and Patricia Adams.
You can watch a full recording of the webinar here
7) New report details China’s energy expansionism and its threat to a free and open Indo-Pacific
Institute for Energy Research, 26 October 2021
WASHINGTON DC (October 26, 2021) – The Institute for Energy Research has released a new report examining China’s aggressive pursuit of resources in the South China Sea. As the United States has engaged in unilateral energy disarmament, China has established a concerted policy to develop offshore oil and natural gas.
On October 21 in Shandong province, People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping said, “Oil energy construction is very significant to our country. As a major manufacturing power, China has to secure its energy supply in its own hands.”
China’s oil and gas appetite grows each year, including in 2020 when it was virtually the only country to increase its oil consumption, despite the covid-19 pandemic. In order to secure resources, the PRC has directed national oil companies to increase production.
A major component of this plan is to develop oil and natural gas resources in the South China Sea. Despite international rulings against its behavior in the region, China’s expansionary pursuits have only intensified in recent years, jeopardizing the shared global interest of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
As Jordan McGillis writes in this IER report, the PRC’s South China Sea endeavors are increasingly infringing upon the rightful claims of its littoral neighbors, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, issued the following statement along with the new report.
“China is our biggest global competitor. As we show in this report, it’s using oil and gas development as part of its climb to global power. This is critical information for Washington to digest, especially given the Biden administration’s disavowal of U.S. oil and gas resources.”
Full report
8) Kimberley A. Strassel: The left’s climate humiliation
The Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2021
President Biden promised progressives that his budget bill would finally deliver them their long-sought climate stick. What they’re getting instead is the same old carrot: corporate welfare.
Mr. Biden’s newest framework promises $555 billion to combat climate change. A White House fact sheet boasts this is the “largest single investment” in U.S. history, and the Beltway press is dutifully propagating that message.
Outlets assured that this “massive” new spending on green-energy subsidies would give the president credibility as he arrives at next week’s climate summit in Glasgow.
In fact, the climate deal is a humiliating loss for both the president and congressional progressives—as further-left media organizations acknowledged over the past week.
“The Centerpiece of Biden’s Climate Agenda Is All But Dead,” Mother Jones railed. “Progressive lawmakers seem resigned to losing their clean energy program,” Jacobin complained. “Biden’s Incredible Shrinking Climate Plan,” the New Republic groused. Several activists from the Sunrise Movement, an originator of the Green New Deal, are staging a hunger strike outside the White House.
Climate warriors have insisted for decades that the subsidies the U.S. uses to coax companies toward green energy, and consumers toward energy-efficient products, aren’t enough. The only way to reduce U.S. carbon emissions sufficiently, they say, is via a federal enforcement mechanism—a program that imposes mandates or pricing policies that require carbon cuts.
They’ve labored for decades to get one. Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced “cap and trade” climate legislation in 2003. A similar bill passed the House in 2009 (and helped Nancy Pelosi lose her majority the following year). Democrats have since then introduced all manner of climate legislation, with provisions ranging from clean-energy standards to carbon pricing and taxes.
It all went nowhere, as Republicans and centrist Democrats alike understood their potential to jack up prices, undermine the reliability of the electricity supply, and destroy U.S. jobs and energy competitiveness.
The Biden presidency was supposed to be the climate crowd’s opportunity. The original climate portion of the reconciliation package was built around the Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would require utilities to buy or generate a certain additional amount of renewable energy every year. Companies would get federal payments if they hit the mark and face steep fines if they didn’t. Natural gas wouldn’t count as “clean.”
Democratic leaders explained again and again this enforcement mechanism was necessary, the primary way Mr. Biden would achieve his promise of reducing U.S. carbon emissions 50% by 2030.
Some Democrats—including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and several Texas representatives—said no to CEPP, and they meant it. Activists tried cajoling them with promises to make the program friendlier to coal-and gas-producing states, but they failed. Progressives then suggested a carbon tax. No dice. They turned to other enforcement replacements, including a border-adjustment tax (a fee on carbon-intensive imports), a methane fee, and a tax on industrial pollution. The White House briefing sheet on this week’s framework made no mention of these changes.
What it does include is a boatload of pork for corporate America. In an effort to claim climate victory, the White House ramped up its top-line number for climate tax credits and subsidies. The bill is now an even bigger pig trough for any business, big or small, that claims even tenuous involvement in producing solar or wind power or electric vehicles. The White House brags that money will even go to companies that aren’t in the renewable sector, via “grants, loans, tax credits and procurement” for “existing industries like steel, cement and aluminum” to help them with “decarbonization.” Progressives want to tax billionaires like Elon Musk. This bill would make them richer.
The White House claims that its souped-up subsidies will largely make up for the loss of enforcement mechanisms. They won’t, though they stand to do real damage to energy reliability and the economy. It also promises progressives a raft of executive actions and agency regulations that will force companies into carbon compliance. At least some congressional Democrats are playing along, proclaiming the framework a climate victory.
But behind closed doors they are unconvinced—and steaming. They know the huge risks of attempting to impose any enforcement mechanisms by executive fiat. President Obama tried the same thing with his Clean Power Plan, only to get blocked by the Supreme Court.
Thanks to Donald Trump's judicial makeover, appellate courts will look skeptically on White House attempts to pre-empt Congress.
All this explains why progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders aren’t yet signing on to the framework. The question is whether climate will prove a deal breaker. Progressives have said repeatedly they’d never agree to a bill that didn’t give them their climate demands, and they got rolled. We’ll now see if they meant it.
Institute for Energy Research, 26 October 2021
WASHINGTON DC (October 26, 2021) – The Institute for Energy Research has released a new report examining China’s aggressive pursuit of resources in the South China Sea. As the United States has engaged in unilateral energy disarmament, China has established a concerted policy to develop offshore oil and natural gas.
On October 21 in Shandong province, People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping said, “Oil energy construction is very significant to our country. As a major manufacturing power, China has to secure its energy supply in its own hands.”
China’s oil and gas appetite grows each year, including in 2020 when it was virtually the only country to increase its oil consumption, despite the covid-19 pandemic. In order to secure resources, the PRC has directed national oil companies to increase production.
A major component of this plan is to develop oil and natural gas resources in the South China Sea. Despite international rulings against its behavior in the region, China’s expansionary pursuits have only intensified in recent years, jeopardizing the shared global interest of a free and open Indo-Pacific.
As Jordan McGillis writes in this IER report, the PRC’s South China Sea endeavors are increasingly infringing upon the rightful claims of its littoral neighbors, including Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei.
Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, issued the following statement along with the new report.
“China is our biggest global competitor. As we show in this report, it’s using oil and gas development as part of its climb to global power. This is critical information for Washington to digest, especially given the Biden administration’s disavowal of U.S. oil and gas resources.”
Full report
8) Kimberley A. Strassel: The left’s climate humiliation
The Wall Street Journal, 29 October 2021
President Biden promised progressives that his budget bill would finally deliver them their long-sought climate stick. What they’re getting instead is the same old carrot: corporate welfare.
Mr. Biden’s newest framework promises $555 billion to combat climate change. A White House fact sheet boasts this is the “largest single investment” in U.S. history, and the Beltway press is dutifully propagating that message.
Outlets assured that this “massive” new spending on green-energy subsidies would give the president credibility as he arrives at next week’s climate summit in Glasgow.
In fact, the climate deal is a humiliating loss for both the president and congressional progressives—as further-left media organizations acknowledged over the past week.
“The Centerpiece of Biden’s Climate Agenda Is All But Dead,” Mother Jones railed. “Progressive lawmakers seem resigned to losing their clean energy program,” Jacobin complained. “Biden’s Incredible Shrinking Climate Plan,” the New Republic groused. Several activists from the Sunrise Movement, an originator of the Green New Deal, are staging a hunger strike outside the White House.
Climate warriors have insisted for decades that the subsidies the U.S. uses to coax companies toward green energy, and consumers toward energy-efficient products, aren’t enough. The only way to reduce U.S. carbon emissions sufficiently, they say, is via a federal enforcement mechanism—a program that imposes mandates or pricing policies that require carbon cuts.
They’ve labored for decades to get one. Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced “cap and trade” climate legislation in 2003. A similar bill passed the House in 2009 (and helped Nancy Pelosi lose her majority the following year). Democrats have since then introduced all manner of climate legislation, with provisions ranging from clean-energy standards to carbon pricing and taxes.
It all went nowhere, as Republicans and centrist Democrats alike understood their potential to jack up prices, undermine the reliability of the electricity supply, and destroy U.S. jobs and energy competitiveness.
The Biden presidency was supposed to be the climate crowd’s opportunity. The original climate portion of the reconciliation package was built around the Clean Electricity Performance Program, which would require utilities to buy or generate a certain additional amount of renewable energy every year. Companies would get federal payments if they hit the mark and face steep fines if they didn’t. Natural gas wouldn’t count as “clean.”
Democratic leaders explained again and again this enforcement mechanism was necessary, the primary way Mr. Biden would achieve his promise of reducing U.S. carbon emissions 50% by 2030.
Some Democrats—including Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and several Texas representatives—said no to CEPP, and they meant it. Activists tried cajoling them with promises to make the program friendlier to coal-and gas-producing states, but they failed. Progressives then suggested a carbon tax. No dice. They turned to other enforcement replacements, including a border-adjustment tax (a fee on carbon-intensive imports), a methane fee, and a tax on industrial pollution. The White House briefing sheet on this week’s framework made no mention of these changes.
What it does include is a boatload of pork for corporate America. In an effort to claim climate victory, the White House ramped up its top-line number for climate tax credits and subsidies. The bill is now an even bigger pig trough for any business, big or small, that claims even tenuous involvement in producing solar or wind power or electric vehicles. The White House brags that money will even go to companies that aren’t in the renewable sector, via “grants, loans, tax credits and procurement” for “existing industries like steel, cement and aluminum” to help them with “decarbonization.” Progressives want to tax billionaires like Elon Musk. This bill would make them richer.
The White House claims that its souped-up subsidies will largely make up for the loss of enforcement mechanisms. They won’t, though they stand to do real damage to energy reliability and the economy. It also promises progressives a raft of executive actions and agency regulations that will force companies into carbon compliance. At least some congressional Democrats are playing along, proclaiming the framework a climate victory.
But behind closed doors they are unconvinced—and steaming. They know the huge risks of attempting to impose any enforcement mechanisms by executive fiat. President Obama tried the same thing with his Clean Power Plan, only to get blocked by the Supreme Court.
Thanks to Donald Trump's judicial makeover, appellate courts will look skeptically on White House attempts to pre-empt Congress.
All this explains why progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders aren’t yet signing on to the framework. The question is whether climate will prove a deal breaker. Progressives have said repeatedly they’d never agree to a bill that didn’t give them their climate demands, and they got rolled. We’ll now see if they meant it.
9) Ross Clark: COP26 is set to be an appalling display of Western decadence
The Daily Telegraph, 29 October 2021
Thousands of diplomats feasting while they plot to curtail our lifestyles. I suspect the public won't be entirely impressed
The Daily Telegraph, 29 October 2021
Thousands of diplomats feasting while they plot to curtail our lifestyles. I suspect the public won't be entirely impressed
What is the government’s principal objective for COP26: to persuade other governments to commit to reaching NetZero by 2050, or to show off Britain to the world as a place to do business, build the Prime Minister’s personal brand and pull one over on Nicola Sturgeon by presiding over an international event in her own backyard?
If the former, it never did make much sense for the government to reject advice to hold it as a virtual event. Surely, when you are preaching about slashing carbon emissions it would set a better example not to have 30,000 delegates fly in from all over the world.
When the world has been forced to do business that way for many months anyway, and the technology for remote meetings has been proven, it is deeply perverse not to employ it for this conference of all conferences. Moreover, had the government held the event online it could have argued that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin were attending it rather than allowing them to take great delight by snubbing the occasion.
But if the Prime Minister is really more interested in the second set of objectives, holding the event live in Glasgow looks like an even worse decision. Even if the train drivers really have called off their threatened strike, the world will still arrive in Glasgow to find some streets piled with rubbish and a desperate shortage of accommodation. What an image it will send if representatives of indigenous peoples from the Amazon and elsewhere - who say they still don’t have anywhere to stay - end up sleeping rough on Sauchiehall Street while the leaders of the rich world are ensconced in five star hotels.
But then that is the climate change elite all over – determined to enjoy a privileged lifestyle which it wants to deny to the rest of us. For months, ordinary travellers to Britain have been made to take expensive tests, isolate for 10 days, shut themselves away in quarantine at a cost of nearly £2000 a time. Then, with COP26 coming up, the red list was dramatically shrunk, even without any obvious drop in global infection rates. And now, the red list will miraculously be abolished altogether. Suddenly it is fine for tens of thousands of people to descend on a city without observing self-isolation.
This is a model for a future which the great and good of the climate movement would love to impose on us – with global economic growth halted so that much of the world can be returned to living lives of pre-industrial purity.
Sir Patrick Vallance wants us to know that he has cut down on flying and started eating less meat in order to tackle climate change. I am sure it will be a terrible hardship for him to take his next holiday by Eurostar and have the occasional seitan and black bean stir fry, but what if you are already struggling to feed your family? I don’t think it will go down too well being told you must curtail your lifestyle for the good of the climate.
COP26 is a rich world event. It doesn’t even try to tackle the issues which developing countries would choose to prioritise, and which used to form the body of global summits: clean water, hunger, debt, HIV, malaria, access to western markets. All the world’s problems have been boiled into one: trying to stop the world’s climate from changing. Developing countries will still turn out and discuss other issues but they will have to do so through the lens of climate change. Kenya wants to talk about locusts, which it now blames on climate change. Kenya wants developed countries to hand over £100 billion to Africa for ‘climate action’.
We can’t carry on as we have been doing, ministers are apt to tell us regarding climate change. Except that at Glasgow they will be doing just that: feasting while they plot to curtail the lifestyles of the rest of us. I fear that the world is not going to be entirely impressed by the show.
If the former, it never did make much sense for the government to reject advice to hold it as a virtual event. Surely, when you are preaching about slashing carbon emissions it would set a better example not to have 30,000 delegates fly in from all over the world.
When the world has been forced to do business that way for many months anyway, and the technology for remote meetings has been proven, it is deeply perverse not to employ it for this conference of all conferences. Moreover, had the government held the event online it could have argued that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin were attending it rather than allowing them to take great delight by snubbing the occasion.
But if the Prime Minister is really more interested in the second set of objectives, holding the event live in Glasgow looks like an even worse decision. Even if the train drivers really have called off their threatened strike, the world will still arrive in Glasgow to find some streets piled with rubbish and a desperate shortage of accommodation. What an image it will send if representatives of indigenous peoples from the Amazon and elsewhere - who say they still don’t have anywhere to stay - end up sleeping rough on Sauchiehall Street while the leaders of the rich world are ensconced in five star hotels.
But then that is the climate change elite all over – determined to enjoy a privileged lifestyle which it wants to deny to the rest of us. For months, ordinary travellers to Britain have been made to take expensive tests, isolate for 10 days, shut themselves away in quarantine at a cost of nearly £2000 a time. Then, with COP26 coming up, the red list was dramatically shrunk, even without any obvious drop in global infection rates. And now, the red list will miraculously be abolished altogether. Suddenly it is fine for tens of thousands of people to descend on a city without observing self-isolation.
This is a model for a future which the great and good of the climate movement would love to impose on us – with global economic growth halted so that much of the world can be returned to living lives of pre-industrial purity.
Sir Patrick Vallance wants us to know that he has cut down on flying and started eating less meat in order to tackle climate change. I am sure it will be a terrible hardship for him to take his next holiday by Eurostar and have the occasional seitan and black bean stir fry, but what if you are already struggling to feed your family? I don’t think it will go down too well being told you must curtail your lifestyle for the good of the climate.
COP26 is a rich world event. It doesn’t even try to tackle the issues which developing countries would choose to prioritise, and which used to form the body of global summits: clean water, hunger, debt, HIV, malaria, access to western markets. All the world’s problems have been boiled into one: trying to stop the world’s climate from changing. Developing countries will still turn out and discuss other issues but they will have to do so through the lens of climate change. Kenya wants to talk about locusts, which it now blames on climate change. Kenya wants developed countries to hand over £100 billion to Africa for ‘climate action’.
We can’t carry on as we have been doing, ministers are apt to tell us regarding climate change. Except that at Glasgow they will be doing just that: feasting while they plot to curtail the lifestyles of the rest of us. I fear that the world is not going to be entirely impressed by the show.
10) Tom Switzer: Net Zero By 2050? Don’t Plan on It
The Wall Street Journal, 28 October 2021
Politicians promise an unrealistic transformation that would deny poor countries a chance to grow.
As leaders prepare to gather in Glasgow for the United Nations climate-change conference, you may think the world has agreed to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependency on fossil fuels, stepping up its reliance on renewable energy. Even Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who won an election opposing costly climate policies, now proudly embraces net-zero emissions by 2050.
But the timeline for the transformation is entirely unrealistic. The politicians who make promises about how energy will be delivered within three decades can be fairly certain that they will be merely footnotes in history. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson claims that all cars sold in Britain will be electric by 2030. But he doesn’t acknowledge that on current trend there won’t be enough electricity to power all of these cars.
Climate enthusiasts admit that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 presents some difficulties. But they quickly shift to talking up the exciting technological challenge, because, according to Australia’s iron-ore billionaire Andrew Forrest, “there are tens of billions of dollars around the world looking to invest in renewables” and eventually in industries such as hydrogen. Activists also suggest that dissent is an affront to international opinion.
Yet as the West strives to cut emissions, the developing world doesn’t, particularly India and China, the two most populated countries on the planet. Global energy consumption is expected to increase 50% by 2050, a rise fueled mostly by developing countries that want energy not to spite the planet or to offend international opinion, but to raise living standards as best they can.
For decades the developed world has implored these countries to trade with the West and not simply rely on handouts from richer countries. In many cases, these rising countries can trade thanks to manufacturing processes and energy sources no longer considered acceptable in polite Western society, namely coal.
The West would do well to remember that it became prosperous through industrialization, a process that relied heavily on fossil fuels. When Britain led the industrial revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it did so entirely on the basis of coal, which powered its factories and later its railways.
Other countries did the same. Now the West uses its supposed moral and economic superiority to lecture other countries on the need to curb their behavior, even if it means retarding their own economic progress and making themselves more dependent on richer countries. This is a form of colonialism, which makes the left’s attraction to it all the more bizarre.
Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, aren’t up to the job of powering the world’s economies. There isn’t enough wind in much of the world to get the turbines turning. Fossil fuels may well be damaging to the health of the planet, but the retreat around the world from nuclear power was shortsighted, especially in countries that lack viable alternatives.
Europe is weathering an energy crisis because of the caprice and spite of Vladimir Putin, who is manipulating the price of the gas Russia provides to Germany and other parts of Europe. This has pushed prices up to a point where not only domestic customers but industrial ones find energy costs reaching prohibitive levels. In Britain, ceramics manufacturers have told a hapless government that they may have to shut down because they can’t afford Mr. Putin’s prices.
In Australia, Mr. Morrison feels compelled to announce net zero so he doesn’t let down Canberra’s Aukus partners, the U.K. and the U.S., which enthusiastically support unilateral decarbonization. Yet by weakening the economies of the West, net zero is a boost to a rising China.
Instead of rhetoric designed to make environmentalists feel smug, Western governments need proper contingency plans for their own energy supplies. Politicians should avoid relying too heavily on renewables, even if that means using coal to power generators or a renaissance of nuclear power to keep the world’s lights on. And the developing world deserves the same chance the developed one had.
One day, with technological breakthroughs, it will be possible to power the world without fossil fuels. But that day isn’t coming soon, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
The Wall Street Journal, 28 October 2021
Politicians promise an unrealistic transformation that would deny poor countries a chance to grow.
As leaders prepare to gather in Glasgow for the United Nations climate-change conference, you may think the world has agreed to reduce and eventually eliminate its dependency on fossil fuels, stepping up its reliance on renewable energy. Even Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who won an election opposing costly climate policies, now proudly embraces net-zero emissions by 2050.
But the timeline for the transformation is entirely unrealistic. The politicians who make promises about how energy will be delivered within three decades can be fairly certain that they will be merely footnotes in history. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson claims that all cars sold in Britain will be electric by 2030. But he doesn’t acknowledge that on current trend there won’t be enough electricity to power all of these cars.
Climate enthusiasts admit that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 presents some difficulties. But they quickly shift to talking up the exciting technological challenge, because, according to Australia’s iron-ore billionaire Andrew Forrest, “there are tens of billions of dollars around the world looking to invest in renewables” and eventually in industries such as hydrogen. Activists also suggest that dissent is an affront to international opinion.
Yet as the West strives to cut emissions, the developing world doesn’t, particularly India and China, the two most populated countries on the planet. Global energy consumption is expected to increase 50% by 2050, a rise fueled mostly by developing countries that want energy not to spite the planet or to offend international opinion, but to raise living standards as best they can.
For decades the developed world has implored these countries to trade with the West and not simply rely on handouts from richer countries. In many cases, these rising countries can trade thanks to manufacturing processes and energy sources no longer considered acceptable in polite Western society, namely coal.
The West would do well to remember that it became prosperous through industrialization, a process that relied heavily on fossil fuels. When Britain led the industrial revolution in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, it did so entirely on the basis of coal, which powered its factories and later its railways.
Other countries did the same. Now the West uses its supposed moral and economic superiority to lecture other countries on the need to curb their behavior, even if it means retarding their own economic progress and making themselves more dependent on richer countries. This is a form of colonialism, which makes the left’s attraction to it all the more bizarre.
Renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, aren’t up to the job of powering the world’s economies. There isn’t enough wind in much of the world to get the turbines turning. Fossil fuels may well be damaging to the health of the planet, but the retreat around the world from nuclear power was shortsighted, especially in countries that lack viable alternatives.
Europe is weathering an energy crisis because of the caprice and spite of Vladimir Putin, who is manipulating the price of the gas Russia provides to Germany and other parts of Europe. This has pushed prices up to a point where not only domestic customers but industrial ones find energy costs reaching prohibitive levels. In Britain, ceramics manufacturers have told a hapless government that they may have to shut down because they can’t afford Mr. Putin’s prices.
In Australia, Mr. Morrison feels compelled to announce net zero so he doesn’t let down Canberra’s Aukus partners, the U.K. and the U.S., which enthusiastically support unilateral decarbonization. Yet by weakening the economies of the West, net zero is a boost to a rising China.
Instead of rhetoric designed to make environmentalists feel smug, Western governments need proper contingency plans for their own energy supplies. Politicians should avoid relying too heavily on renewables, even if that means using coal to power generators or a renaissance of nuclear power to keep the world’s lights on. And the developing world deserves the same chance the developed one had.
One day, with technological breakthroughs, it will be possible to power the world without fossil fuels. But that day isn’t coming soon, and it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment