Green-Scam

For the past four years, journalists and environmental bloggers have been churning out alarming stories that insects are vanishing, in the United States and globally. Limited available evidence lends credence to reasonable concerns, not least because insects are crucial components of many ecosystems. But the issue has often been framed in catastrophic terms, with predictions of a near-inevitable and imminent ecological collapse that would break ecosystems, destroy harvests, and trigger widespread starvation. Most of the proposed solutions would require a dramatic retooling of many aspects of modern life, from urbanization to agriculture.

The lifestyles of around three average Americans will create enough planet-heating emissions to kill one person, and the emissions from a single coal-fired power plant is likely to result in more than 900 deaths, according to the first analysis to calculate the mortal cost of carbon emissions.

The new research builds upon what is known as the “social cost of carbon”, a monetary figure placed upon the damage caused by each ton of carbon dioxide emissions, by assigning an expected death toll from the emissions that cause the climate crisis.

The analysis draws upon several public health studies to conclude that for every 4,434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature. This additional CO2 is equivalent to the current lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans.

How come these studies never mention China and it’s coal plants?

When the federal Liberals rolled out with fanfare last week their plan to deal with the human cost of cutting greenhouse gases, their timing was dubious.

It’s been two years, after all, since the Liberals committed to legislating a “just transition” for people working in fossil fuels who lose their jobs as Canada moves toward an economy that produces net-zero emissions.

Work had started on that front in 2017, with then-environment minister Catherine McKenna moving to set up a task force to help workers and communities impacted by government decisions to put an end to coal-fired electricity.

Trying to achieve the United Nations’ target of limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels will do more social and economic harm than good, says a new study by the Fraser Institute released Tuesday.

The Trudeau government’s decision to ban gasoline-powered cars by 2035 in the drive to “net zero” emissions is part of a global policy agenda kickstarted by a 2018 “Special Report” issued by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report, titled Global Warming of 1.5°C, was commissioned to study the potential benefits of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius rather than the 2.0°C target stated in the Paris Agreement.

The reaction to Steven Koonin’s book highlights just how toxic this debate has become

There’s a problem with writing about science — any science — which is that scientists are human like the rest of us. They are not perfect disembodied truth-seeking agents but ordinary, flawed humans navigating social, professional and economic incentive structures.

Most notably, scientists, like people, are social. If they exist in a social or professional circle that believes X, it is hard to say not-X; if they have professed to believe Y, they won’t want to look silly and admit not-Y. It might even be hard to get research funded or published if it isn’t in line with what the wider group believes.

We’re still battling the coronavirus tyrants. Now come the climate authoritarians.

More than 200 climate scientists — and that’s “scientists” with an eyeball roll — have gathered to put the final touches on an agreement that will take the lessons learning from the coronavirus, meaning the idea that fear sells and sells well, and apply them to the field of environmental regulation.

The headlines have already started the buzz.

Using environmental metrics to pursue progressive social agendas is a bad idea

It’s not called man-made climate change for nothing. According to new research from Sweden — covered in yesterday’s Guardian — single men are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than single women. 

Despite spending similar amounts of money, the male carbon footprint was 16% bigger than that left behind by the average female. 

In a breathtaking act of arrogance, hubris and tone-deafness, the United Nations is insisting on going live with its annual global warming gabfest from Oct. 31 to Nov. 12 this year.

That means up to 30,000 people from 200 countries will pour into Glasgow, Scotland this fall, including more than 100 heads of state and thousands of government and UN bureaucrats there on the public’s dime.

The world is awash in reports of catastrophes attributed to climate change. Floods in Europe. Wildfires up and down the West Coast. Heat domes across the continent. Smoke emergencies fouling the air. All the warnings about greenhouse gas emissions, and still … this.

After a remarkable period of pipeline expansion, primarily in the United States over the past decade, North America is expected to become an increasingly inhospitable place for new projects, according to a new report.