Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

A government treating climate change seriously would: 🚒 recruit more firefighters, paid and equipped properly, reopen closed stations 🛢️no new licenses for oil and gas, definitely no fracking or “clean coal” ⚡️ decarbonise existing energy system (~10% reduction yoy) 🦫 extensive beaver Rewilding programme + other flood strengthening of...

OliDugmore's profile picture

Oli Dugmore

61,396 subscribers

172,981 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Haberler & Politika
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena — cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are “what the magnitude of the change is and why the change is” happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is “that we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.” Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. “You can't measure it, it's meaningless,” he tells Rebel News. “Ultimately, we need the oil and gas industry — and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.” As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. “It takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.” Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown “a lot of nice words” around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. “We need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal — whatever, where it makes economic sense,” he says. “We just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.”
6:20

Push for net zero is 'meaningless': Friends of Science president Ron Davison Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. When it comes to pushing back against hysteria over climate change, few do it better than the Friends of Science. The organization says the societal and policy focus on climate change and carbon dioxide is misguided, suggesting instead that climate fluctuations are driven more by natural phenomena — cycles and influences, ocean cycles, and naturally changing atmospheric oscillations. And while humans do contribute to climate change, we adapt and innovate to these changing patterns, an approach Friends of Science advocates for in contrast to the government's push for low-carbon policies and taxes. Rebel News caught up with Ron Davison, president of Friends of Science, at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, where we spoke to him about the issues surrounding this contentious topic. The key questions regarding climate change are “what the magnitude of the change is and why the change is” happening, he says. With focus heavily on CO2, Davison says his position is “that we should have more CO2 going out into the atmosphere, as long as it's just CO2 and water.” Other chemicals going along with it, that's a danger, he adds. Even if accomplished, the push for net zero would achieve a miniscule 0.7 degrees reduction in temperature, Davison asserts. “You can't measure it, it's meaningless,” he tells Rebel News. “Ultimately, we need the oil and gas industry — and coal too, it'd be great, we don't have it anymore. But if it's clean emissions, it benefits everyone.” As activists continue to drum up alarm and attempt to shut down industries crucial to Canada's economy, Davison points to a book published by Friends of Science called Energy and Climate at a Glance. “It takes a lot of the points on energy and climate and distills them down to a couple of sentences, but with the technical backup to a link with a 100, 200, 300-page report from reputable institutions.” Prime Minister Mark Carney's government has thrown “a lot of nice words” around, Davison says, but he remains skeptical about any major changes from Carney's Liberal government compared to Justin Trudeau. “We need energy. And that includes renewable, geothermal — whatever, where it makes economic sense,” he says. “We just should not be having this energy transition forced upon us when we can't afford us and it's not going to make any difference in the end to the temperature.”

Rebel News

13,009 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Now: 1000s out today and every week in Manchester for Palestine saying loud and clear: No Climate Justice Without Palestinian Liberation! There is no accounting for Israel's environmental damage while they dropped the equivalent of multiple atom bombs in the destruction of Gaza this last year. The last 76 years, Israel has systematically utilised climate and environmental oppression as a tool to control and decimate Palestinians and their ancestral lands, be it through destruction of Palestinian agricultural industries, appropriation and theft of natural resources, or greenwashing war crimes by presenting “afforestation projects” conducted on stolen land as “combating climate change”. Off the back of a brutal 17-year siege, the ongoing genocide in Gaza has also exposed Israel’s deliberate attempts to render Gaza unliveable through ecocide. As we know, the Zionist regime is only as strong as its network of global collaborators. This year, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-29) is being held in Baku, Azerbaijan between 11th - 22nd November. The hypocrisy of the Azeri government in hosting the conference is astounding, given it plays an active role in ensuring Israel has the resources it needs to fuel genocide. Israel receives approximately 30% of its oil from Azerbaijan via the BTC pipeline. The final stop of the BTC pipeline is in Turkey, from which point the oil is shipped to Israel. This pipeline is majority-owned by BP and SOCAR - Azerbaijan’s state oil company. Turkey, despite presenting itself as an avid supporter of Palestinian liberation, has in fact done nothing to cease or restrict energy and oil exports to Israel. Without access to energy, oil, coal, gas, and the funding from such industries, Israel would not be able to continue the genocide in Gaza or its settler-colonial expansion in Palestine and now, southern Lebanon. It is up to us to hold accountable all complicit entities fuelling Israel and permitting it to escalate its violent oppression of Palestinians. #FreePalestine #ClimateJustice #StopGazaGenocide
2:19

Now: 1000s out today and every week in Manchester for Palestine saying loud and clear: No Climate Justice Without Palestinian Liberation! There is no accounting for Israel's environmental damage while they dropped the equivalent of multiple atom bombs in the destruction of Gaza this last year. The last 76 years, Israel has systematically utilised climate and environmental oppression as a tool to control and decimate Palestinians and their ancestral lands, be it through destruction of Palestinian agricultural industries, appropriation and theft of natural resources, or greenwashing war crimes by presenting “afforestation projects” conducted on stolen land as “combating climate change”. Off the back of a brutal 17-year siege, the ongoing genocide in Gaza has also exposed Israel’s deliberate attempts to render Gaza unliveable through ecocide. As we know, the Zionist regime is only as strong as its network of global collaborators. This year, the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-29) is being held in Baku, Azerbaijan between 11th - 22nd November. The hypocrisy of the Azeri government in hosting the conference is astounding, given it plays an active role in ensuring Israel has the resources it needs to fuel genocide. Israel receives approximately 30% of its oil from Azerbaijan via the BTC pipeline. The final stop of the BTC pipeline is in Turkey, from which point the oil is shipped to Israel. This pipeline is majority-owned by BP and SOCAR - Azerbaijan’s state oil company. Turkey, despite presenting itself as an avid supporter of Palestinian liberation, has in fact done nothing to cease or restrict energy and oil exports to Israel. Without access to energy, oil, coal, gas, and the funding from such industries, Israel would not be able to continue the genocide in Gaza or its settler-colonial expansion in Palestine and now, southern Lebanon. It is up to us to hold accountable all complicit entities fuelling Israel and permitting it to escalate its violent oppression of Palestinians. #FreePalestine #ClimateJustice #StopGazaGenocide

MANPalestineMovement

24,778 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

I did promise since last year that we would bring agriculture and food systems to center stage at COP28, and here we are! Celebrating together, a MILESTONE MOMENT IN HISTORY for food systems and agriculture at a COP in the first session. I'm happy to confirm that COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action has so far received 134 endorsements from heads of state and government. With these countries on board, we cover more than 5.7 billion people and 70% of all the food we eat. The signatories of the declaration are home to nearly 500 million farmers and represent 75% of all emissions from global food systems. To support the funding and innovation part of the declaration, it gives me great pleasure to announce a significant funding partnership with a very dear partner to the UAE. The partnership will focus on agricultural research and development and scaling up innovations, which is so desperately needed to adapt food systems to the growing threats of climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, together with the UAE, will fund a total sum of… 200 million US dollars of new investments into food and ag research and scaling up innovations. With the majority of this investment flowing into the CGIAR network, the UAE is delighted to become a core partner of the CGIAR System Council and support its work. A big thank you to all the countries who have endorsed the declaration and contributed to this watershed moment for the food and climate agenda. We look forward to many more joining over the next few days! #FoodSystems #agriculture #COP28UAE #cgiar
1:15

I did promise since last year that we would bring agriculture and food systems to center stage at COP28, and here we are! Celebrating together, a MILESTONE MOMENT IN HISTORY for food systems and agriculture at a COP in the first session. I'm happy to confirm that COP28 UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action has so far received 134 endorsements from heads of state and government. With these countries on board, we cover more than 5.7 billion people and 70% of all the food we eat. The signatories of the declaration are home to nearly 500 million farmers and represent 75% of all emissions from global food systems. To support the funding and innovation part of the declaration, it gives me great pleasure to announce a significant funding partnership with a very dear partner to the UAE. The partnership will focus on agricultural research and development and scaling up innovations, which is so desperately needed to adapt food systems to the growing threats of climate change. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, together with the UAE, will fund a total sum of… 200 million US dollars of new investments into food and ag research and scaling up innovations. With the majority of this investment flowing into the CGIAR network, the UAE is delighted to become a core partner of the CGIAR System Council and support its work. A big thank you to all the countries who have endorsed the declaration and contributed to this watershed moment for the food and climate agenda. We look forward to many more joining over the next few days! #FoodSystems #agriculture #COP28UAE #cgiar

Mariam Almheiri | مريم المهيري

179,930 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

In a small village in the Punjab, a girl of about eight years old crouches over a clay stove, feeding it patties of dried cow dung. Smoke billows into her face. She coughs while feeding the fire. There is no reliable electricity. When the family gets a little extra money, they buy liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which burns cleanly, as natural gas does in stoves in the wealthy West. Unfortunately, that LPG just got priced out of reach for hundreds of millions like her. The 2026 Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz were the triggers for the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is the chronic underinvestment and underdevelopment of oil and gas resources by poor, developing, and rich nations alike over the last ten years. Policymakers diverted that money into green energy, which failed to prevent the crisis. Zion Lights, the author of an essential new book, Energy Is Life, watched the above scene during a visit to her parents’ ancestral village in India. Her parents had emigrated to Birmingham, England, in the late 1960s and 1970s to work in factories. The factories gave them wages, dignity, and a foothold in the developed world. The family they left behind in the Punjab remained trapped in a poverty so total that it touched everything: health, education, opportunity, lifespan. At the root of it all is the lack of energy. The energy crisis will hurt poor people in poor nations far more than anyone in the U.S. or the rest of the West. Asian countries receive 80 percent of their energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz. For Bangladesh, which sources 72 percent of its LNG from Qatar and the UAE, the supply disruption translates to an extra $760 to $830 million in monthly import costs. “All poverty is energy poverty, when you think about it,” Lights said in our new podcast. “They’re living in 40-degree Celsius heat. No air conditioning. You can give them an air conditioner, you can give them money for an air conditioner, but how’s it going to work if you don’t have the electricity?” It would be unfair to entirely blame the lack of oil and gas supplies on Western climate policy. Beyond the Iran war, governance failures, corruption, conflict, and infrastructure decay all play important roles. India’s power sector dysfunction predates any climate agreement. Pakistan’s circular debt crisis has roots in decades of mismanagement and subsidy distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity deficit reflects bad governance, underinvestment, and the difficulty of building transmission infrastructure across vast, sparsely populated territories. But climate policy has been the dominant priority in wealthy nations’ engagement with the developing world for two decades, and Western green NGOs have even blocked the construction of hydroelectric dams, which tend to be the first reliable source of power that poor nations develop as they rise the development ladder. Beginning in the early 2010s and accelerating sharply after the 2015 Paris Agreement, Western development banks, private financial institutions, and national governments began systematically restricting financing for oil, gas, and coal projects in the developing world. The stated rationale was climate change. The practical effect was to deny poor countries the energy infrastructure that every wealthy nation used to climb out of poverty... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full podcast, and read the rest of the article.
10:13

In a small village in the Punjab, a girl of about eight years old crouches over a clay stove, feeding it patties of dried cow dung. Smoke billows into her face. She coughs while feeding the fire. There is no reliable electricity. When the family gets a little extra money, they buy liquified petroleum gas (LPG), which burns cleanly, as natural gas does in stoves in the wealthy West. Unfortunately, that LPG just got priced out of reach for hundreds of millions like her. The 2026 Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz were the triggers for the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is the chronic underinvestment and underdevelopment of oil and gas resources by poor, developing, and rich nations alike over the last ten years. Policymakers diverted that money into green energy, which failed to prevent the crisis. Zion Lights, the author of an essential new book, Energy Is Life, watched the above scene during a visit to her parents’ ancestral village in India. Her parents had emigrated to Birmingham, England, in the late 1960s and 1970s to work in factories. The factories gave them wages, dignity, and a foothold in the developed world. The family they left behind in the Punjab remained trapped in a poverty so total that it touched everything: health, education, opportunity, lifespan. At the root of it all is the lack of energy. The energy crisis will hurt poor people in poor nations far more than anyone in the U.S. or the rest of the West. Asian countries receive 80 percent of their energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz. For Bangladesh, which sources 72 percent of its LNG from Qatar and the UAE, the supply disruption translates to an extra $760 to $830 million in monthly import costs. “All poverty is energy poverty, when you think about it,” Lights said in our new podcast. “They’re living in 40-degree Celsius heat. No air conditioning. You can give them an air conditioner, you can give them money for an air conditioner, but how’s it going to work if you don’t have the electricity?” It would be unfair to entirely blame the lack of oil and gas supplies on Western climate policy. Beyond the Iran war, governance failures, corruption, conflict, and infrastructure decay all play important roles. India’s power sector dysfunction predates any climate agreement. Pakistan’s circular debt crisis has roots in decades of mismanagement and subsidy distortions. Sub-Saharan Africa’s electricity deficit reflects bad governance, underinvestment, and the difficulty of building transmission infrastructure across vast, sparsely populated territories. But climate policy has been the dominant priority in wealthy nations’ engagement with the developing world for two decades, and Western green NGOs have even blocked the construction of hydroelectric dams, which tend to be the first reliable source of power that poor nations develop as they rise the development ladder. Beginning in the early 2010s and accelerating sharply after the 2015 Paris Agreement, Western development banks, private financial institutions, and national governments began systematically restricting financing for oil, gas, and coal projects in the developing world. The stated rationale was climate change. The practical effect was to deny poor countries the energy infrastructure that every wealthy nation used to climb out of poverty... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full podcast, and read the rest of the article.

Michael Shellenberger

43,350 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

🚨 CALIFORNIANS SCREAMING FOR CHANGE: 16 Years of Total Democrat Disaster Has Turned the Golden State Into a Nightmare Still counting ballots days and weeks later like it’s completely normal. Mail-ins showing up late, vote centers with millions of ballots just sitting in boxes. No urgency, no pride, pure incompetence under one-party Democrat rule. They can’t build bridges, can’t fix homelessness, can’t even run a clean election on time. Republican candidate Steve Garvey is firing back hard: Californians are done with the insanity, highest cost of living in America, sky-high taxes, $7.89/gallon gas in the Bay Area, electric bills double the national average, and people fleeing the once-beautiful state in droves. 16 years of Democrats controlling everything, governor, legislature, big cities, courts, and the result is total failure. Garvey, backed by President Trump and VP JD Vance, is offering real solutions: • Open up CA oil & gas to crash prices • Slash government fraud and bloat • First $100K tax-free for working families • Cut the endless bureaucracy crushing small businesses 56% of Californians now say they want change. Even Democrats and independents are breaking ranks. Time to give voters a real choice in November instead of more of this madness. California deserves better. Enough is enough
6:05

🚨 CALIFORNIANS SCREAMING FOR CHANGE: 16 Years of Total Democrat Disaster Has Turned the Golden State Into a Nightmare Still counting ballots days and weeks later like it’s completely normal. Mail-ins showing up late, vote centers with millions of ballots just sitting in boxes. No urgency, no pride, pure incompetence under one-party Democrat rule. They can’t build bridges, can’t fix homelessness, can’t even run a clean election on time. Republican candidate Steve Garvey is firing back hard: Californians are done with the insanity, highest cost of living in America, sky-high taxes, $7.89/gallon gas in the Bay Area, electric bills double the national average, and people fleeing the once-beautiful state in droves. 16 years of Democrats controlling everything, governor, legislature, big cities, courts, and the result is total failure. Garvey, backed by President Trump and VP JD Vance, is offering real solutions: • Open up CA oil & gas to crash prices • Slash government fraud and bloat • First $100K tax-free for working families • Cut the endless bureaucracy crushing small businesses 56% of Californians now say they want change. Even Democrats and independents are breaking ranks. Time to give voters a real choice in November instead of more of this madness. California deserves better. Enough is enough

Gunther Eagleman™

36,145 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!
46:20

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has pulled the US out of the United Nations Paris agreement on climate change, unleashed fossil fuel production, cut climate subsidies that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, and chosen as his Secretary of Energy an oilman who helped create the fracking revolution. Given that Democrats have spent the last 20 years describing climate change as an “existential threat” and making climate policy their highest priority under Biden, one would expect there to be significant protests and other actions by progressives. And yet we’ve seen no significant climate change protests since Trump took office two months ago. No Greta Thunberg marches — she’s moved on to Palestine. No drumbeat from the news media. No Extinction Rebellion activists blocking traffic in DC. “Climate emergency” was not among the words chosen by Democrats in Congress to put on the little placards they held up during Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month. In fact, to the extent there have been protests by Democrats, they have been against the world’s most pioneering electric car manufacturer, Tesla, and have nothing to do with climate change. It’s true that many Democrats still care deeply about climate change and the issue may come back in the future. Where just 23% of Republicans view climate change as a serious threat to the country, 78% of Democrats do. “Executive orders are for show,” says political scientist and climate policy expert, The Honest Broker , on a new podcast for Public, “legislation is for real. And there doesn't seem to be any legislative strategy accompanying anything Trump is doing. As far as pulling out of Paris, we've done this dance before. Trump pulled out to Paris, and then Biden went back in.” And the media and Democrats routinely tie every natural disaster, such as the recent fires in LA, to climate change, even though there’s no good science supporting such connections, in most instances. “Every day there's some extreme weather somewhere,” said Pielke, who is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “and so it is a perfectly made issue for sustaining some degree of attention.” But the partisan polarization over climate change, and the ease with which Trump and Biden can put the US in and out of the Paris agreement, all underscore the overall low level of concern with climate change in comparison to more pressing issues like inflation, migration, and even seemingly fringe issues like transgenderism. “The climate movement is a product of North America and Northern Europe,” said Pielke. “The ‘climate first’ voter is a tiny slice of the political landscape, even though they occupy a lot of attention and time on social media, in universities, and until recently, in the global financial sector. They made a lot of noise, but there weren't a lot of them around to begin with. The climate is just not that important to very many people around the world. People will say it's important. But give them a list of topics and it routinely comes in 17th, 18th, 19th, out of 20.” And now Pielke predicts that climate change could go the way of past environmental scares. “One story for the future of the climate discourse and climate change is that it's not going to go away, but it's going to fade from the center of public view like overpopulation did.” Why did climate change emerge as an issue of concern and then fade? “There's a pretty well-known economist named Anthony Downs who wrote a famous paper called the Issue Attention Cycle,” said Pielke. “It’s like a bell curve. You discover there's a potential problem, there's a lot of excitement, and ‘We’ve got to do something about it!’ Everybody gets on the bandwagon. Then you realize, ‘Oh my gosh, this is difficult! This is challenging!’ And then your attention goes to somewhere else and it's back down. And really climate change is following the Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle perfectly.” Pielke notes that the rate at which economies decarbonize, or reduce the amount of carbon dioxide per unit of GDP, is unchanged. “For the foreseeable future, we will continue to decarbonize the economy no matter what countries say about their climate commitments or whether there's a Viktor Orban or a Donald Trump in office. Decarbonization is much more powerful, it seems, than the politics of the climate. The Paris agreement hasn't really done anything to alter the trajectory of global decarbonization….Climate policy does a lot of things, but reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not one of those things...” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning journalism, read the rest of the article, and listen to the full podcast!

Michael Shellenberger

51,165 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !
9:56

For the past decade, the Left treated climate change not merely as an environmental concern, but as the looming catastrophe around which all politics, morality, and policy had to revolve. The media described climate change as an existential emergency, a threat not just to polar bears and coastlines but to the very survival of civilization. Democrats and the Left halted pipelines. They banned gas stoves. They mandated electric vehicles. They reshaped global financial markets around emissions. President Joe Biden’s $700 billion Inflation Reduction Act was sold as a historic turning point in the global fight to cut emissions. In 2019, teenagers filled city squares and blocked traffic across continents. Greta Thunberg stood before the United Nations, her voice trembling with fury: “How dare you?” she asked world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.” Since taking office in January 2025, Donald Trump has dismantled nearly every major federal climate initiative. He pulled the United States out of the Paris Climate Agreement, scrapped core funding for green subsidies under the Inflation Reduction Act, and resumed oil and gas leasing on federal lands. Trump ended ESG influence over federal pensions, shut down federal climate research programs across multiple agencies, halted new NOAA climate modeling projects, and redirected funding away from academic climate partnerships. He reinstated permitting reforms to speed up infrastructure projects, including pipelines and refineries. Trump’s second-term climate agenda represents the most sweeping regulatory rollback in American history. And yet, climate protests against Trump have been nearly nonexistent. No national marches have filled the streets of Washington, as they did when 200,000 joined the People’s Climate March in 2017, or when the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg, mobilized more than 7 million people across 150 countries in a week of coordinated strikes. No occupations of bank lobbies or fossil fuel headquarters. No die-ins, no chain-yourself-to-the-gate stunts, no mass arrests outside congressional offices. The kinds of actions that defined the climate movement just a few years ago, from gluing hands to paintings to dumping milk in supermarket aisles to camping out at pipeline construction sites, have vanished. Social media feeds that once overflowed with fiery rhetoric, countdown clocks, and images of burning forests now scroll silently past Trump’s climate rollbacks with barely a word. The teenagers who shut down traffic in 2019 are now in their twenties and have moved on. The sense of emergency, once performed with almost religious intensity, has dissipated without explanation. It’s not that nothing has happened. Groups have issued statements. Al Gore recently compared Trump to Hitler. A few marches have taken place, and some climate organizations, like the Sunrise Movement, have released critical press releases or participated in multipurpose protests. Environmental advocates continue to push for action at the state and local levels. Greta Thunberg briefly appeared at a climate rally in Amsterdam. And within elite policy circles, there has been handwringing about the rollback of climate policy. But compared to the fervent climate activism of just a few years ago, the current response to Trump’s sweeping policy reversals has been practically non-existent. There is no climate protest movement in America today with even a tenth of the energy of the ones that existed under Trump’s first term, or under Obama. No one is blocking freeways with banners or lying down in traffic dressed as dying polar bears. No serious attempt has been made to shut down the Capitol or surround congressional offices with sit-ins. CNN isn’t running wall-to-wall coverage of melting glaciers. Late-night hosts aren’t mocking oil executives or sounding alarms about extinction. The celebrities who once posted weepy, black-and-white Instagram monologues about climate breakdown have disappeared. Even Thunberg, whose blank-eyed fury once symbolized the climate movement’s moral clarity, no longer holds a cardboard sign on Fridays; she’s now focused on protesting Israel’s war with Hamas. Why would a movement that claimed the fate of the Earth was at stake quietly abandon its core issue? Why would its most famous faces stop organizing around what they once called humanity’s final warning? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting, to read the rest of the article, and to watch the full video with psychologist and narcissism expert, Professor Sam Vaknin !

Michael Shellenberger

80,304 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Zack Polanski speaking at the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, "The government are very good at recognising the problems, at recognising the crisis, the supply chain issues, the energy crisis in Iran, the energy crisis from Ukraine" "But very rarely do they seem to have solutions, things to actually do about it. And when they do have solutions, rarely are they solutions of the scale we need" "So if we look at the energy crisis, for instance, we've heard recently that energy bills in this country could go up 200 pound per year, on average for a household" "That's completely unacceptable" "And far too often I don't hear the solutions from the government that are just so obvious to ramp up our investment in renewable energy to make sure that we're insulating every single home in Britain that needs it" "So it is both warm in the winter and cool in the summer as well as creating hundreds of thousands of good green jobs that could be in public sectors that could be unionised so people are paid properly and treated with dignity and, and care and to remove the subsidies from the fossil fuel companies" "The same people who are destroying our planet should not be getting subsidised by the government at a time when we're in the climate crisis" "But as you know, well it's not just an energy crisis, it's a crisis for food too. Because what we've seen in Iran or implicated by Iran is a fertiliser crisis" "We know how devastating and damaging that already is for our supply chains and for the food that we produce" "And this badly needs intervention, it badly needs help. And what did we see this government do? Well, they cut tariffs on chocolates and biscuits" "Now don't get me wrong, there is room to do this and that will provide a small relief for some families" "That's not a long term plan for UK businesses and UK food production" "That's not a Long term plan to invest in resilience and in our food supply chains, in our energy" "It's not a long term plan that takes these issues seriously, not in the next few weeks or months, but goes we need to fundamentally rethink our systems change and how we provide food security as one of the most fundamental things in our society"
2:16

Zack Polanski speaking at the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, "The government are very good at recognising the problems, at recognising the crisis, the supply chain issues, the energy crisis in Iran, the energy crisis from Ukraine" "But very rarely do they seem to have solutions, things to actually do about it. And when they do have solutions, rarely are they solutions of the scale we need" "So if we look at the energy crisis, for instance, we've heard recently that energy bills in this country could go up 200 pound per year, on average for a household" "That's completely unacceptable" "And far too often I don't hear the solutions from the government that are just so obvious to ramp up our investment in renewable energy to make sure that we're insulating every single home in Britain that needs it" "So it is both warm in the winter and cool in the summer as well as creating hundreds of thousands of good green jobs that could be in public sectors that could be unionised so people are paid properly and treated with dignity and, and care and to remove the subsidies from the fossil fuel companies" "The same people who are destroying our planet should not be getting subsidised by the government at a time when we're in the climate crisis" "But as you know, well it's not just an energy crisis, it's a crisis for food too. Because what we've seen in Iran or implicated by Iran is a fertiliser crisis" "We know how devastating and damaging that already is for our supply chains and for the food that we produce" "And this badly needs intervention, it badly needs help. And what did we see this government do? Well, they cut tariffs on chocolates and biscuits" "Now don't get me wrong, there is room to do this and that will provide a small relief for some families" "That's not a long term plan for UK businesses and UK food production" "That's not a Long term plan to invest in resilience and in our food supply chains, in our energy" "It's not a long term plan that takes these issues seriously, not in the next few weeks or months, but goes we need to fundamentally rethink our systems change and how we provide food security as one of the most fundamental things in our society"

Farrukh

31,310 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

The Iran conflict is a reminder that we must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, say many in the media. Iran’s disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz means the world is now losing 13 million barrels per day of oil and refined products, which is over 10% of global consumption. After QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG exporter, declared force majeure on all exports after Iranian drone strikes, Asian buyers scrambled to redirect orders to Australia. But then, last week, a cyclone slammed into Australia’s LNG corridor, forcing shutdowns at three of the country’s largest facilities. David Wallace-Wells in the New York Times noted, “No one has ever started a war over solar panels.” But nobody goes to war over solar panels for the same reason nobody goes to war over candles: they cannot power the things that economies, civilizations, and wars run on. A gallon of jet fuel contains 34 kilowatt-hours of energy in a package weighing six pounds. A lithium-ion battery storing the same energy weighs 250 pounds. That density gap is why every military on earth runs on liquid hydrocarbons, why every container ship crossing the Pacific burns bunker fuel, why every combine harvester in Iowa runs on diesel, and why every 747 landing at Heathrow runs on kerosene. The fact that nobody wages war over solar panels is evidence of their limitations, not superiority. Many respond by claiming that fossil fuels persist because of government subsidies and political favoritism. The IMF says global fossil fuel subsidies total $7 trillion. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cited that number when he called for eliminating “fossil fuel subsidies that distort markets and lock us into the past.” But the $7 trillion figure is almost entirely fictional. The IMF’s own data show that only 18% of its subsidy estimate reflects actual government spending or undercharging for supply costs. The remaining 82% consists of what the IMF calls “implicit subsidies,” a theoretical construct that assigns a dollar value to the environmental and social costs of burning fossil fuels and then treats the failure to tax those costs as a subsidy. By that logic, any product whose price does not reflect the full externalized cost of its production is “subsidized.” The real problem is that the world overinvested in green energy and underinvested in oil and gas. Globally, the IEA’s World Energy Investment 2025 report documented that $2.2 trillion flowed to clean energy in 2025, exactly double the $1.1 trillion invested in oil, natural gas, and coal combined. In the U.S., federal tax expenditures for green energy end users in fiscal year 2025 alone totaled $57.9 billion. That figure exceeds the aggregate of all federal fossil fuel tax expenditures over the 31-year period from 1994 to 2025, totaling $50.8 billion. The oil and gas extraction sector generated $1.8 trillion in total U.S. revenues in 2024, meaning that the $3 billion in actual government support represents 0.17% of industry revenue, an economic rounding error. Renewable energy hardware is overwhelmingly manufactured in China, creating a supply chain dependency that is more precarious than the oil dependency it purports to replace. China’s share of global polysilicon, ingot, and wafer production has reached approximately 95%. China controls 91% of rare earth processing and 94% of the permanent magnet production essential for wind turbines. China dominates more than 75% of global solar cell and module manufacturing and is projected to control nearly 60% of all critical mineral refining by 2030. In 2025, Beijing weaponized this dominance, and bismuth prices surgednearly 500% overnight. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!
4:44

The Iran conflict is a reminder that we must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, say many in the media. Iran’s disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz means the world is now losing 13 million barrels per day of oil and refined products, which is over 10% of global consumption. After QatarEnergy, the world’s largest LNG exporter, declared force majeure on all exports after Iranian drone strikes, Asian buyers scrambled to redirect orders to Australia. But then, last week, a cyclone slammed into Australia’s LNG corridor, forcing shutdowns at three of the country’s largest facilities. David Wallace-Wells in the New York Times noted, “No one has ever started a war over solar panels.” But nobody goes to war over solar panels for the same reason nobody goes to war over candles: they cannot power the things that economies, civilizations, and wars run on. A gallon of jet fuel contains 34 kilowatt-hours of energy in a package weighing six pounds. A lithium-ion battery storing the same energy weighs 250 pounds. That density gap is why every military on earth runs on liquid hydrocarbons, why every container ship crossing the Pacific burns bunker fuel, why every combine harvester in Iowa runs on diesel, and why every 747 landing at Heathrow runs on kerosene. The fact that nobody wages war over solar panels is evidence of their limitations, not superiority. Many respond by claiming that fossil fuels persist because of government subsidies and political favoritism. The IMF says global fossil fuel subsidies total $7 trillion. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cited that number when he called for eliminating “fossil fuel subsidies that distort markets and lock us into the past.” But the $7 trillion figure is almost entirely fictional. The IMF’s own data show that only 18% of its subsidy estimate reflects actual government spending or undercharging for supply costs. The remaining 82% consists of what the IMF calls “implicit subsidies,” a theoretical construct that assigns a dollar value to the environmental and social costs of burning fossil fuels and then treats the failure to tax those costs as a subsidy. By that logic, any product whose price does not reflect the full externalized cost of its production is “subsidized.” The real problem is that the world overinvested in green energy and underinvested in oil and gas. Globally, the IEA’s World Energy Investment 2025 report documented that $2.2 trillion flowed to clean energy in 2025, exactly double the $1.1 trillion invested in oil, natural gas, and coal combined. In the U.S., federal tax expenditures for green energy end users in fiscal year 2025 alone totaled $57.9 billion. That figure exceeds the aggregate of all federal fossil fuel tax expenditures over the 31-year period from 1994 to 2025, totaling $50.8 billion. The oil and gas extraction sector generated $1.8 trillion in total U.S. revenues in 2024, meaning that the $3 billion in actual government support represents 0.17% of industry revenue, an economic rounding error. Renewable energy hardware is overwhelmingly manufactured in China, creating a supply chain dependency that is more precarious than the oil dependency it purports to replace. China’s share of global polysilicon, ingot, and wafer production has reached approximately 95%. China controls 91% of rare earth processing and 94% of the permanent magnet production essential for wind turbines. China dominates more than 75% of global solar cell and module manufacturing and is projected to control nearly 60% of all critical mineral refining by 2030. In 2025, Beijing weaponized this dominance, and bismuth prices surgednearly 500% overnight. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, watch the full video, and read the rest of the article!

Michael Shellenberger

58,648 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Warm greetings on Indian Foreign Service Day! Hardeep Singh Puri Sir, your journey as a diplomat and now as a key figure in India's leadership is truly inspiring. The pride and responsibility you’ve carried while representing India globally, and now in shaping key policies, is commendable. Wishing you continued success in fostering international relations and driving India's growth forward. Here are some achievements of Shri Hardeep Singh Puri Sir : 1. Participation in G20 Summits: Advocated for global economic stability and cooperation. 2. Ambassador to Brazil: Enhanced bilateral relations and trade between India and Brazil. 3. Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Involved in significant negotiations on peacekeeping and global security. 4. Advocacy for Development Issues: Focused on poverty alleviation and sustainable development at the UN. 5. Promotion of India's Soft Power: Enhanced India's cultural diplomacy and global governance contributions. 6. Role in International Conferences: Contributed to discussions on peace and security at global summits. 7. Strengthening Ties with the Indian Diaspora: Fostered connections and highlighted their role as cultural ambassadors. 8. Crisis Response Initiatives: Led diplomatic responses during crises, providing humanitarian assistance. 9. Global Health Initiatives: Advocated for international cooperation in combating health issues. 10. Advancement of Global Trade Discussions: Promoted fair trade practices for developing nations. 11. Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas: Focused on energy security and sustainable practices. 12. Implementation of PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan: Improved multimodal connectivity and infrastructure development. 13. Expansion of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana: Provided LPG connections to below-poverty-line households. 14. Support for Electric Mobility: Advocated for electric vehicles to reduce pollution. 15. Investment in Renewable Energy Projects: Championed large-scale solar and wind projects. 16. Housing for All: Implemented PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) for affordable housing. 17. Promotion of International Trade: Facilitated agreements to enhance India's energy exports. 18. Public Health Initiatives: Launched campaigns for safe and clean energy practices. 19. Global Energy Partnerships: Fostered collaborations in the energy sector for security and innovation. 20. Launch of the National Hydrogen Mission: Promoted hydrogen as a clean energy source. 21. Vande Bharat Mission: Led the repatriation of millions of stranded Indians during the pandemic. 22. COVID-19 Response: Maintained supply chains for uninterrupted fuel and energy availability. 23. Support for Startups and Innovations: Encouraged entrepreneurship in energy and aviation sectors. 24. Enhancement of Oil and Gas Exploration: Promoted self-sufficiency in energy resources. 25. Promotion of Alternate Fuels: Advocated for biogas and ethanol usage to support sustainability. 26. Revival of Air India: Played a key role in restoring the national carrier’s operational efficiency. 27. Expansion of LPG Infrastructure: Improved access to clean cooking fuel in rural areas. 28. Skill Development in Aviation: Promoted initiatives to enhance workforce capabilities. 29. Enhancement of Airport Infrastructure: Upgraded airports for better passenger experience. 30. Leadership in Energy Transition Discussions: Influenced sustainable practices in global energy policies. 31. National Biofuel Policy: Promoted the use of biofuels in transportation for energy security. 32. Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC): Improved energy efficiency in urban buildings. 33. Support for Women Empowerment Initiatives: Focused on increasing women's participation in energy sector leadership. 34. Crisis Management in Diplomacy: Ensured timely evacuation and assistance during international emergencies. 35. Engagement with Non-Aligned Movement: Reinforced India's leadership role among developing nations. 36. Role in Climate Agreements: Actively participated in climate change negotiations, including the Paris Agreement. 37. Promotion of India's Maritime Interests: Advocated for security cooperation in maritime affairs. 38. Promotion of Digital Diplomacy: Utilized technology for enhanced diplomatic outreach. 39. Collaboration with International Organizations: Worked with bodies like the International Energy Agency (IEA) for best practices. 40. Crisis Response During Natural Disasters: Coordinated India's humanitarian aid efforts in response to global crises. 41. Global Leadership in Energy Efficiency: Advocated for international collaboration on energy conservation. 42. Public-Private Partnerships in Energy: Encouraged collaborations to enhance energy infrastructure and investment. 43. Support for Renewable Energy Initiatives: Championed policies for sustainable energy generation and usage. 44. Advancement of Smart City Projects: Promoted urban development with intelligent transport systems. 45. Initiatives for Rural Electrification: Focused on extending electricity access to rural communities. 46. International Recognition: Gained accolades for contributions to energy policy and diplomacy. 47. Leadership in Peacekeeping Operations: Advocated for India's role in UN peacekeeping missions. 48. Participation in International Security Dialogues: Engaged in discussions on global security challenges. 49. Role in Counter-Terrorism Efforts: Strengthened India's position in international counter-terrorism discussions. 50. Engagement with Global Energy Forums: Influenced international energy discussions and policies. 51. Smart City Mission: Played a crucial role in the launch and implementation of the Smart City Mission, focusing on urban innovation. 52. Attracting Foreign Investment: Worked to bring in foreign investments in both the petroleum and aviation sectors. 53. Advocacy for Sustainable Urban Planning: Promoted policies to ensure sustainable urban development and housing. 54. Facilitation of International Cooperation in Urban Development: Engaged with global partners to share best practices in urban planning. 55. Launch of Housing Initiatives for Urban Poor: Developed schemes specifically targeting housing for low-income families. 56. Promotion of Energy-efficient Technologies: Advocated for the adoption of cleaner technologies in the energy sector. 57. Support for Women’s Health Initiatives: Focused on energy access and its impact on women’s health and well-being. 58. Enhancement of India’s Energy Diplomacy: Strengthened relationships with energy-producing nations. 59. Promotion of Research and Development in Energy: Encouraged innovation in energy technology and research. 60. Implementation of Smart Grids: Promoted the development of smart grids for efficient energy distribution. 61. Role in Enhancing Regional Cooperation: Advocated for regional energy cooperation in South Asia. 62. Promoting India’s Energy Security Agenda: Focused on securing India’s energy needs through diverse sources. 63. Collaboration with Industry Leaders: Worked with industry stakeholders to promote sustainable practices. 64. Global Advocacy for Clean Energy Solutions: Represented India’s interests in global clean energy discussions. 65. Promotion of Corporate Responsibility in Energy: Encouraged corporations to adopt sustainable energy practices. 66. Leadership in Urban Mobility Initiatives: Promoted policies to improve public transport and reduce urban congestion. 67. Development of Integrated Transport Systems: Advocated for a multimodal approach to transportation planning. 68. Promotion of Decentralized Energy Solutions: Supported renewable energy projects at the community level. 69. Encouragement of Local Manufacturing in Energy Sector: Advocated for indigenous production of energy technologies. 70. Promotion of Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Supported new financing models for energy projects. 71. Enhancement of Air Safety Standards: Focused on improving safety measures in civil aviation. 72. Promotion of Cargo and Logistics Services: Advocated for the growth of air cargo services to boost trade. 73. Support for Regional Air Connectivity: Strengthened initiatives for connecting underserved regions. 74. Leadership in Aviation Policy Reforms: Worked towards comprehensive reforms in the aviation sector. 75. Development of Aviation Infrastructure: Facilitated investments in airports and aviation facilities. 76. Community Engagement in Energy Projects: Promoted community involvement in renewable energy projects. 77. Support for Energy Access Initiatives: Advocated for projects that increase energy access for marginalized communities. 78. Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Focused on the role of clean energy in enhancing agricultural productivity. 79. Engagement with Youth on Energy Issues: Promoted awareness among youth regarding energy conservation and sustainability. 80. Support for Skill Development Programs: Encouraged training programs in renewable energy technologies. 81. Advocacy for Climate Action: Continued efforts in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable practices. 82. Promotion of India as an Energy Hub: Positioned India as a central player in the global energy market. 83. Leadership in Global Energy Transitions: Influenced discussions on transitioning to renewable energy sources. 84. Engagement with Multilateral Organizations: Strengthened India’s position in international organizations related to energy. 85. Commitment to National Development Goals: Aligned energy policies with national development objectives. 86. Promotion of Environmental Sustainability: Advocated for policies that balance development with environmental conservation. 87. Support for Technology Transfer: Encouraged collaboration for the transfer of clean technologies to India. 88. Participation in International Forums on Energy: Actively engaged in global dialogues on energy security and sustainability. 89. Role in Disaster Management Initiatives: Contributed to policies that integrate energy management in disaster response. 90. Implementation of Smart Energy Solutions: Advocated for the adoption of smart meters and energy-efficient appliances to enhance energy management. 91. Promotion of Clean Cooking Solutions: Launched initiatives to provide access to clean cooking fuels to reduce health hazards in rural areas. 92. Strengthening of Regulatory Frameworks: Worked on reforms to streamline regulations in the oil and gas sector, enhancing transparency and efficiency. 93. International Collaborations for Renewable Energy: Established partnerships with countries for joint research and development in renewable energy technologies. 94. Advocacy for Energy Efficiency Labels: Promoted the labeling of appliances to encourage consumers to choose energy-efficient products. 95. Engagement in International Climate Finance Discussions: Represented India in dialogues aimed at securing funding for climate change mitigation projects. 96. Promotion of Urban Sustainability Initiatives: Advocated for integrated urban development strategies that focus on sustainability and livability. 97. Support for the Production of Biofuels: Encouraged initiatives to enhance the domestic production of biofuels to achieve energy security. 98. Advancement of Women’s Leadership in Energy: Launched programs to promote women's leadership in the energy 99. Fostering Innovation in Energy Startups: Supported initiatives aimed at nurturing startups in the energy sector through mentorship and funding. 100. Commitment to India’s Energy Independence: Continually worked towards policies that enhance India’s energy independence and reduce reliance on imports and 100+ more. Narendra Modi Amit Shah Office of Hardeep Singh Puri Lakshmi M Puri Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas #MoPNG Bharat Petroleum Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited GAIL (India) Limited Indian Foreign Service Association BJP गृहमंत्री कार्यालय, HMO India PMO India rasaal dwivedi BJP Delhi Manohar Lal Parshottam Rupala Indian Oil Corp Ltd ChairmanIOC Indian Diplomacy Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
0:51

Warm greetings on Indian Foreign Service Day! Hardeep Singh Puri Sir, your journey as a diplomat and now as a key figure in India's leadership is truly inspiring. The pride and responsibility you’ve carried while representing India globally, and now in shaping key policies, is commendable. Wishing you continued success in fostering international relations and driving India's growth forward. Here are some achievements of Shri Hardeep Singh Puri Sir : 1. Participation in G20 Summits: Advocated for global economic stability and cooperation. 2. Ambassador to Brazil: Enhanced bilateral relations and trade between India and Brazil. 3. Permanent Representative to the United Nations: Involved in significant negotiations on peacekeeping and global security. 4. Advocacy for Development Issues: Focused on poverty alleviation and sustainable development at the UN. 5. Promotion of India's Soft Power: Enhanced India's cultural diplomacy and global governance contributions. 6. Role in International Conferences: Contributed to discussions on peace and security at global summits. 7. Strengthening Ties with the Indian Diaspora: Fostered connections and highlighted their role as cultural ambassadors. 8. Crisis Response Initiatives: Led diplomatic responses during crises, providing humanitarian assistance. 9. Global Health Initiatives: Advocated for international cooperation in combating health issues. 10. Advancement of Global Trade Discussions: Promoted fair trade practices for developing nations. 11. Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas: Focused on energy security and sustainable practices. 12. Implementation of PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan: Improved multimodal connectivity and infrastructure development. 13. Expansion of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana: Provided LPG connections to below-poverty-line households. 14. Support for Electric Mobility: Advocated for electric vehicles to reduce pollution. 15. Investment in Renewable Energy Projects: Championed large-scale solar and wind projects. 16. Housing for All: Implemented PMAY (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana) for affordable housing. 17. Promotion of International Trade: Facilitated agreements to enhance India's energy exports. 18. Public Health Initiatives: Launched campaigns for safe and clean energy practices. 19. Global Energy Partnerships: Fostered collaborations in the energy sector for security and innovation. 20. Launch of the National Hydrogen Mission: Promoted hydrogen as a clean energy source. 21. Vande Bharat Mission: Led the repatriation of millions of stranded Indians during the pandemic. 22. COVID-19 Response: Maintained supply chains for uninterrupted fuel and energy availability. 23. Support for Startups and Innovations: Encouraged entrepreneurship in energy and aviation sectors. 24. Enhancement of Oil and Gas Exploration: Promoted self-sufficiency in energy resources. 25. Promotion of Alternate Fuels: Advocated for biogas and ethanol usage to support sustainability. 26. Revival of Air India: Played a key role in restoring the national carrier’s operational efficiency. 27. Expansion of LPG Infrastructure: Improved access to clean cooking fuel in rural areas. 28. Skill Development in Aviation: Promoted initiatives to enhance workforce capabilities. 29. Enhancement of Airport Infrastructure: Upgraded airports for better passenger experience. 30. Leadership in Energy Transition Discussions: Influenced sustainable practices in global energy policies. 31. National Biofuel Policy: Promoted the use of biofuels in transportation for energy security. 32. Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC): Improved energy efficiency in urban buildings. 33. Support for Women Empowerment Initiatives: Focused on increasing women's participation in energy sector leadership. 34. Crisis Management in Diplomacy: Ensured timely evacuation and assistance during international emergencies. 35. Engagement with Non-Aligned Movement: Reinforced India's leadership role among developing nations. 36. Role in Climate Agreements: Actively participated in climate change negotiations, including the Paris Agreement. 37. Promotion of India's Maritime Interests: Advocated for security cooperation in maritime affairs. 38. Promotion of Digital Diplomacy: Utilized technology for enhanced diplomatic outreach. 39. Collaboration with International Organizations: Worked with bodies like the International Energy Agency (IEA) for best practices. 40. Crisis Response During Natural Disasters: Coordinated India's humanitarian aid efforts in response to global crises. 41. Global Leadership in Energy Efficiency: Advocated for international collaboration on energy conservation. 42. Public-Private Partnerships in Energy: Encouraged collaborations to enhance energy infrastructure and investment. 43. Support for Renewable Energy Initiatives: Championed policies for sustainable energy generation and usage. 44. Advancement of Smart City Projects: Promoted urban development with intelligent transport systems. 45. Initiatives for Rural Electrification: Focused on extending electricity access to rural communities. 46. International Recognition: Gained accolades for contributions to energy policy and diplomacy. 47. Leadership in Peacekeeping Operations: Advocated for India's role in UN peacekeeping missions. 48. Participation in International Security Dialogues: Engaged in discussions on global security challenges. 49. Role in Counter-Terrorism Efforts: Strengthened India's position in international counter-terrorism discussions. 50. Engagement with Global Energy Forums: Influenced international energy discussions and policies. 51. Smart City Mission: Played a crucial role in the launch and implementation of the Smart City Mission, focusing on urban innovation. 52. Attracting Foreign Investment: Worked to bring in foreign investments in both the petroleum and aviation sectors. 53. Advocacy for Sustainable Urban Planning: Promoted policies to ensure sustainable urban development and housing. 54. Facilitation of International Cooperation in Urban Development: Engaged with global partners to share best practices in urban planning. 55. Launch of Housing Initiatives for Urban Poor: Developed schemes specifically targeting housing for low-income families. 56. Promotion of Energy-efficient Technologies: Advocated for the adoption of cleaner technologies in the energy sector. 57. Support for Women’s Health Initiatives: Focused on energy access and its impact on women’s health and well-being. 58. Enhancement of India’s Energy Diplomacy: Strengthened relationships with energy-producing nations. 59. Promotion of Research and Development in Energy: Encouraged innovation in energy technology and research. 60. Implementation of Smart Grids: Promoted the development of smart grids for efficient energy distribution. 61. Role in Enhancing Regional Cooperation: Advocated for regional energy cooperation in South Asia. 62. Promoting India’s Energy Security Agenda: Focused on securing India’s energy needs through diverse sources. 63. Collaboration with Industry Leaders: Worked with industry stakeholders to promote sustainable practices. 64. Global Advocacy for Clean Energy Solutions: Represented India’s interests in global clean energy discussions. 65. Promotion of Corporate Responsibility in Energy: Encouraged corporations to adopt sustainable energy practices. 66. Leadership in Urban Mobility Initiatives: Promoted policies to improve public transport and reduce urban congestion. 67. Development of Integrated Transport Systems: Advocated for a multimodal approach to transportation planning. 68. Promotion of Decentralized Energy Solutions: Supported renewable energy projects at the community level. 69. Encouragement of Local Manufacturing in Energy Sector: Advocated for indigenous production of energy technologies. 70. Promotion of Innovative Financing Mechanisms: Supported new financing models for energy projects. 71. Enhancement of Air Safety Standards: Focused on improving safety measures in civil aviation. 72. Promotion of Cargo and Logistics Services: Advocated for the growth of air cargo services to boost trade. 73. Support for Regional Air Connectivity: Strengthened initiatives for connecting underserved regions. 74. Leadership in Aviation Policy Reforms: Worked towards comprehensive reforms in the aviation sector. 75. Development of Aviation Infrastructure: Facilitated investments in airports and aviation facilities. 76. Community Engagement in Energy Projects: Promoted community involvement in renewable energy projects. 77. Support for Energy Access Initiatives: Advocated for projects that increase energy access for marginalized communities. 78. Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Practices: Focused on the role of clean energy in enhancing agricultural productivity. 79. Engagement with Youth on Energy Issues: Promoted awareness among youth regarding energy conservation and sustainability. 80. Support for Skill Development Programs: Encouraged training programs in renewable energy technologies. 81. Advocacy for Climate Action: Continued efforts in addressing climate change and promoting sustainable practices. 82. Promotion of India as an Energy Hub: Positioned India as a central player in the global energy market. 83. Leadership in Global Energy Transitions: Influenced discussions on transitioning to renewable energy sources. 84. Engagement with Multilateral Organizations: Strengthened India’s position in international organizations related to energy. 85. Commitment to National Development Goals: Aligned energy policies with national development objectives. 86. Promotion of Environmental Sustainability: Advocated for policies that balance development with environmental conservation. 87. Support for Technology Transfer: Encouraged collaboration for the transfer of clean technologies to India. 88. Participation in International Forums on Energy: Actively engaged in global dialogues on energy security and sustainability. 89. Role in Disaster Management Initiatives: Contributed to policies that integrate energy management in disaster response. 90. Implementation of Smart Energy Solutions: Advocated for the adoption of smart meters and energy-efficient appliances to enhance energy management. 91. Promotion of Clean Cooking Solutions: Launched initiatives to provide access to clean cooking fuels to reduce health hazards in rural areas. 92. Strengthening of Regulatory Frameworks: Worked on reforms to streamline regulations in the oil and gas sector, enhancing transparency and efficiency. 93. International Collaborations for Renewable Energy: Established partnerships with countries for joint research and development in renewable energy technologies. 94. Advocacy for Energy Efficiency Labels: Promoted the labeling of appliances to encourage consumers to choose energy-efficient products. 95. Engagement in International Climate Finance Discussions: Represented India in dialogues aimed at securing funding for climate change mitigation projects. 96. Promotion of Urban Sustainability Initiatives: Advocated for integrated urban development strategies that focus on sustainability and livability. 97. Support for the Production of Biofuels: Encouraged initiatives to enhance the domestic production of biofuels to achieve energy security. 98. Advancement of Women’s Leadership in Energy: Launched programs to promote women's leadership in the energy 99. Fostering Innovation in Energy Startups: Supported initiatives aimed at nurturing startups in the energy sector through mentorship and funding. 100. Commitment to India’s Energy Independence: Continually worked towards policies that enhance India’s energy independence and reduce reliance on imports and 100+ more. Narendra Modi Amit Shah Office of Hardeep Singh Puri Lakshmi M Puri Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas #MoPNG Bharat Petroleum Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited GAIL (India) Limited Indian Foreign Service Association BJP गृहमंत्री कार्यालय, HMO India PMO India rasaal dwivedi BJP Delhi Manohar Lal Parshottam Rupala Indian Oil Corp Ltd ChairmanIOC Indian Diplomacy Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

Rajashekhar Masna

50,836 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!
8:27

Governments, banks, and corporations across the developed world have for nearly four decades treated the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the final word on the science of climate change. The Obama and Biden administrations regulated carbon dioxide as a pollutant on the strength of IPCC findings. The European Union built its emissions trading system around IPCC scenarios. The United Kingdom anchored its 2008 Climate Change Act in projections drawn from the panel’s reports. Central banks established a Network for Greening the Financial System that now requires more than 140 supervisors to stress-test banks against IPCC-derived futures. Asset managers wrote trillions of dollars in environmental, social, and governance funds on the assumption that the panel’s high-end scenario described the world’s likely path. Local governments along American and European coastlines planned seawalls and zoning rules around IPCC sea level numbers. Insurance companies repriced risk on the same models. That assumption has now collapsed. In April 2026, the scenario committee that supplies the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, known as ScenarioMIP, published a paper that concluded that “on the high-end of the range, the CMIP6 high emission levels (quantified by SSP5-8.5) have become implausible…” In other words, the worst-case future that has anchored climate science for fifteen years describes a world that cannot exist. Scenario “RCP 8.5,” and its successor SSP5-8.5, generated more than half of the references in the 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment. They accounted for nearly 60% of the references in the IPCC’s Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere. Thirty new studies per day are published based on RCP 8.5. The IPCC’s defenders insist that the world dodged the apocalypse because of climate policy. A modeler told Carbon Brief that RCP 8.5 had “become implausible, based on trends in the costs of renewables, the emergence of climate policy and recent emission trends.” Berkeley Earth’s Zeke Hausfather argued that “it is incontrovertible that rapid cost declines, investment in, and deployment of clean energy technologies in the past 15 years have changed the plausible scenarios for fossil fuel use later in this century. These new scenarios reflect this success.” Robert Vautard, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group I for the upcoming Seventh Assessment Report, said that the previous high scenarios “started in 2015 and assumed no climate policies, but there ARE now many climate policies in many countries, developed in particular with the Paris Agreement,” and the retirement of RCP 8.5 “shows that climate mitigation policies do consistently reduce global warming.” Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania said on X, “The good news is emissions are now tracking below older ‘business-as-usual’ pathways because of climate policy in spite of Trump.” But that story is false. RCP 8.5 was never plausible, and the people who built it either knew or should have known. A 2017 paper by Justin Ritchie and Hadi Dowlatabadi in the journal Energy showed that the scenario assumed roughly an eightfold expansion of global coal consumption by 2100, far exceeding five times proven coal reserves, based on extrapolating early-2000s Chinese coal growth rates indefinitely into the future. Coal’s share of the global energy mix peaked around 2013 and has fallen since, the opposite of the RCP 8.5 trajectory. The scenario also assumed a dramatic expansion of coal-to-liquids technology to replace petroleum, a technology that the United States and other industrialized economies abandoned in the 1980s when the collapse in oil prices killed off the Carter-era Synthetic Fuels Corporation. None of those assumptions reflected what serious energy analysts were saying in 2011, when the scenario was finalized. The American shale gas revolution had already been underway for half a decade. Between 2005 and 2022, U.S. carbon emissions from electricity generation fell by roughly 35%, with more than 60% of that decline driven by switching from coal to natural gas. In 2021, Roger Pielke Jr. and his coauthors found that observed emissions had been running below the RCP and SSP baseline scenarios for two decades, primarily because of slower-than-projected carbon intensity growth, not climate policy. As Pielke put it recently, “RCP8.5 is not simply ‘highly unlikely,’ it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We knew that in 2020.” IPCC’s scenario builders thus broke their own definition of a scenario, which the IPCC’s 2000 Special Report on Emissions Scenarios defined as is “a coherent, internally consistent, and plausible description of a possible future state of the world,” and RCP 8.5 was none of those things.... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

54,805 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!
6:22

Renewables are the key to preventing resource scarcity, argue European leaders, California Governor Gavin Newsom, and Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, whose bestselling book Abundance became one of Barack Obama’s favorite books of 2025 and launched a political movement dedicated to what Klein calls “a politics of plenty.” The logic is straightforward and appealing. Solar panel costs have fallen more than 90% since 2010. Wind power costs have dropped by 70%. Battery storage prices have collapsed. If governments would simply clear the regulatory obstacles to building solar farms, wind turbines, and transmission lines, the abundance argument goes, clean energy would flow so abundantly that fossil fuel dependence would become a choice rather than a necessity. “The miracles of solar and wind and battery power,” Klein told the Long Now Foundation, “have given us the only shot we have to avoid catastrophic climate change.” But if renewables could prevent resource scarcity, then the world would not be in the midst of what the International Energy Agency’s Executive Director Fatih Birol called “the greatest global energy security challenge in history,” with global supply losses now totaling 12 million barrels per day, compared to about 5 million during each of the 1973 and 1979 crises. The United Kingdom is receiving its last shipment of jet fuel from the Middle East with nothing behind it. Australia saw over 500 gas stations run dry. And South Korea is considering driving restrictions for the first time since 1991. “In April,” warned Birol, “there is nothing.” It is true that solar and batteries have made enormous progress. Solar electricity costs roughly 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour at the point of generation, cheaper than any fossil fuel in most locations. Battery costs have fallen below $115 per kilowatt-hour. China produces more solar panels than the rest of the world combined. But the world has installed more than 1,600 gigawatts of solar capacity and over 1,000 gigawatts of wind, and still we are in crisis. Global green energy investment was $2.3 trillion in 2025 alone. And yet when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, none of that capacity mattered, because solar panels do not produce jet fuel, diesel, ammonia, or the petrochemical feedstocks that underpin modern civilization. Electricity accounts for roughly 20% of final energy consumption worldwide. The other 80%, the part that moves ships, flies planes, heats buildings, and makes fertilizer, runs overwhelmingly on oil and gas. Solar and wind cannot substitute for these fuels at any price, because the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons exceeds batteries by a factor of 40 to 80 by weight. Klein and Thompson, to their credit, also support some forms of nuclear power. Abundance opens with a vision of cities powered by “clean (nuclear) and renewable (wind and solar) energy sources.” They lament America’s nuclear stagnation compared to France’s successful buildout. Klein has said that he supports advancing nuclear power alongside renewables. But, the new nuclear power plants that Klein and Thompson support do not exist. The “small modular reactors” that populate the abundance fantasy have not produced a single commercial kilowatt-hour of electricity. NuScale, the most advanced American SMR developer, canceled its flagship project in 2023 after costs doubled. No SMR has received a commercial operating license anywhere in the world. The first commercially operating SMR, if all goes well, may produce power in the early 2030s, but SMR developers have for years said that their reactors are just a few years away. Scaling to a meaningful share of global energy supply would take decades, as opposed to building conventional nuclear plants, which Japan and China have shown they can build in just two years, so long as they are standardized and the same construction crews are used. Democrats, progressives, environmental groups, and left-wing parties across Europe diverted hundreds of billions of dollars over the last two decades from developing the new oil and gas production, pipelines, refineries, and LNG terminals needed to make energy cheap and abundant. California’s aggressive climate mandates drove residential electricity prices to 34 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly double the national average, while the state simultaneously blocked new natural gas infrastructure. And global investment in oil and gas exploration and production peaked at roughly $780 billion in 2014 and fell to approximately $350 billion by 2020, a decline driven by deliberate policy choices to restrict fossil fuel development. The European Union’s Green Deal, America’s Inflation Reduction Act, and climate policies across the developed world channeled subsidies toward solar and wind while imposing carbon taxes, windfall levies, and permitting restrictions on fossil fuel projects. The UK’s Energy Profits Levy, introduced in 2022, discouraged investment in the North Sea at precisely the moment when more domestic production was needed. The UK Labor government then banned new exploration licenses in November 2025. Germany’s Energiewende spent over €500 billion on renewables while shutting down its nuclear plants, leaving the country dependent on Russian gas and then, after the Ukraine war, on LNG that must now compete with Asian buyers for cargoes that can no longer transit Hormuz. And the UK has lost a third of its refineries in the last 18 months, meaning that even if crude oil arrived tomorrow, the country lacks the capacity to refine it into the jet fuel, diesel, and heating oil its citizens need. The only energy abundance solution that works at the scale of civilization right now is piped natural gas and oil. A pipeline delivers energy continuously, at near-zero marginal cost per unit delivered, with no exposure to shipping chokepoints, insurance markets, or geopolitical disruption. A ton of natural gas moved through a pipeline costs a fraction of what the same gas costs when liquefied, shipped by tanker across an ocean, and regasified at a terminal. The logical endpoint is a world powered by natural gas delivered through continental pipeline networks, eventually transitioning to hydrogen produced from natural gas and nuclear power. America built pipelines while Europe and Asia built LNG dependency. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, which has ramped from 770,000 barrels per day to 2.9 million since the war began, is the emergency proof of concept. If the Gulf states had built sufficient pipeline capacity to bypass Hormuz before the war, the crisis would be a fraction of its current severity. So why do so many on the Left continue to preach renewables as the solution to a crisis that renewables manifestly cannot solve?... Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

129,641 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.
4:13

The Hormuz crisis is the precipitating factor in the current energy crisis, but the underlying cause is too little oil and gas production outside the Persian Gulf. Had the world spent the past decade building the oil, gas, LNG, pipeline, and fertilizer infrastructure that engineers designed and companies proposed, the Hormuz crisis would still be a serious geopolitical event, but it would not threaten to cause a recession. North America — The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line from West Virginia to North Carolina, saw its cost double from $4.5 billion to $8 billion during years of environmental litigation before Duke Energy and Dominion Energy cancelled it in July 2020. — The Constitution Pipeline from Pennsylvania to New York died the same year. — The PennEast Pipeline won its case at the United States Supreme Court in 2021 and still could not get built because New Jersey refused to issue state permits. — In Canada, TransCanada abandoned the $15.7 billion Energy East pipeline in 2017 after the National Energy Board required an unprecedented review of upstream and downstream emissions. — In January 2024, the Biden administration paused all pending approvals for LNG export terminals shipping to non-free-trade-agreement countries, freezing projects representing tens of billions of cubic feet per day of potential capacity. — Venture Global’s CP2 terminal in Louisiana, designed for 20 million tonnes per annum, sat in regulatory limbo for over a year. — NextDecade’s Rio Grande LNG in Texas, with 48 MTPA of planned capacity, stalled alongside it. — PTT Global Chemical’s proposed $10 billion ethane cracker in Belmont County, Ohio, first announced in 2015, remains on indefinite hold after failing to attract financing partners amid climate-driven investor sentiment. — Across the US Gulf Coast, nearly 60% of planned plastic and petrochemical production projects sit on hold. — LNG Canada, the Shell-led terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia, took over six years from construction start to first cargo, with its pipeline running 263% over budget. Environmental review, Indigenous disputes, and contractor cost escalation all contributed. — Pieridae Energy’s Goldboro LNG project in Nova Scotia, a 10 MTPA facility first proposed in 2012, was abandoned in November 2023 after more than a decade of permitting and financing obstacles. Australia — Australia’s Santos’s Barossa gas project was halted midway through construction after a Federal Court ruling overturned its environmental approval. — Woodside’s Scarborough project faces ongoing litigation from the Australian Conservation Foundation seeking to block it on climate grounds. Africa — Perhaps nowhere has the damage been more consequential than in Africa. At COP26 in 2021, wealthy nations pledged to halt overseas development finance for gas projects, a commitment that fell hardest on the continent least responsible for climate change and most in need of energy infrastructure. — The World Bank stopped financing oil and gas extraction in 2019 and imposed restrictive conditions on downstream gas projects. — The European Investment Bank announced a complete ban on unabated fossil fuel financing by the end of 2021, with its president declaring that “gas is over.” — At least 21 other development finance institutions followed suit. As a result: — TotalEnergies’ Mozambique LNG project sat under force majeure for four and a half years after the UK Export Credit Agency and other backers withdrew climate-motivated financing. — The East African Crude Oil Pipeline lost financing commitments from more than 30 major international banks under pressure from climatists. Europe — France prevented the completion of a third gas interconnector with Spain, citing climate neutrality goals. — The United Kingdom imposed a moratorium on fracking in 2019 despite sitting atop one of Europe’s most promising shale gas formations. — Germany, which shuttered its last three nuclear plants in April 2023, compounded its gas dependency by refusing to develop domestic shale resources. — CF Industries permanently shut the UK’s largest ammonia plant at Billingham, a facility that also produced 60% of Britain’s food-grade CO2. — Yara International curtailed output across plants in France, Italy, and Belgium before permanently closing its 400,000 tonne per year ammonia facility at Tertre, Belgium, in October 2024. These closures occurred because European climate policy made gas too expensive for the domestic industry to survive.

Michael Shellenberger

623,854 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Britain's national debt is almost £3 trillion, equal to 94 per cent of GDP. We add £95.9 billion a year to it, and spend £100 billion a year servicing it. We have seen cumulative inflation of 31.3 per cent since 2020. Borrowing is up £700 million from 2025, £2.3 billion more than the OBR forecast. We spend more on welfare (£333 billion) than we take in income tax (£331 billion), with the bill set to reach £400 billion by 2030. 53 per cent of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, despite taxes being the highest since 1948. We have the most expensive energy costs in the developed world, but refuse to use our domestic oil and gas reserves purely because of ideology. We cannot go on like this. We can't afford to. Fortunately, we don't have to. Decline is a choice. Both Reform UK and Restore Britain have proposed sensible economic and energy policies to reverse our national poverty. Reform promises to - abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain; - ban foreign nationals from claiming benefits; - put people making bogus PIP and unemployment claims back to work, by requiring in-person assessments for disability benefits, and community service for anyone on out-of-work benefits for a year or more; - liquidate useless Quangos and shrink the civil service, by reverting government departments to Ministerial control; - repeal the Climate Change Act, and scrap Net Zero; - build small modular nuclear reactors, and issue new North Sea Oil and gas licenses. Restore agree. Atop the above, their policy papers propose - denaturalising and deporting immigrants who have been granted British citizenship, but receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes; - raising income, corporation and capital gains tax and VAT registration thresholds; - returning the Bank of England and its Monetary Policy Committee to Ministerial control; - abolishing stamp duty, inheritance tax, and the climate change levy; - and renegotiating renewables contracts to reduce or eliminate subsidies. All of these are sensible suggestions that will save us billions. If we want to restore Britain's prosperity, we should all be on the same page about these policies.
29:38

Britain's national debt is almost £3 trillion, equal to 94 per cent of GDP. We add £95.9 billion a year to it, and spend £100 billion a year servicing it. We have seen cumulative inflation of 31.3 per cent since 2020. Borrowing is up £700 million from 2025, £2.3 billion more than the OBR forecast. We spend more on welfare (£333 billion) than we take in income tax (£331 billion), with the bill set to reach £400 billion by 2030. 53 per cent of households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, despite taxes being the highest since 1948. We have the most expensive energy costs in the developed world, but refuse to use our domestic oil and gas reserves purely because of ideology. We cannot go on like this. We can't afford to. Fortunately, we don't have to. Decline is a choice. Both Reform UK and Restore Britain have proposed sensible economic and energy policies to reverse our national poverty. Reform promises to - abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain; - ban foreign nationals from claiming benefits; - put people making bogus PIP and unemployment claims back to work, by requiring in-person assessments for disability benefits, and community service for anyone on out-of-work benefits for a year or more; - liquidate useless Quangos and shrink the civil service, by reverting government departments to Ministerial control; - repeal the Climate Change Act, and scrap Net Zero; - build small modular nuclear reactors, and issue new North Sea Oil and gas licenses. Restore agree. Atop the above, their policy papers propose - denaturalising and deporting immigrants who have been granted British citizenship, but receive more in benefits than they contribute in taxes; - raising income, corporation and capital gains tax and VAT registration thresholds; - returning the Bank of England and its Monetary Policy Committee to Ministerial control; - abolishing stamp duty, inheritance tax, and the climate change levy; - and renegotiating renewables contracts to reduce or eliminate subsidies. All of these are sensible suggestions that will save us billions. If we want to restore Britain's prosperity, we should all be on the same page about these policies.

Connor Tomlinson

35,446 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

The Trump administration underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz, note many in the media. CNN reported that while the Departments of Energy and the Treasury participated in pre-war planning meetings, “the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations.” But the Strait of Hormuz was a catastrophe waiting to happen. A few years from now, people will look back on this moment and find it incredible that the world allowed the global economy to be dependent on moving so much oil and natural gas through such a dangerous bottleneck. Part of the solution is for the world to reduce its dependence on Persian Gulf oil and gas. That will require expanding production outside the Persian Gulf. Another part is to help Persian Gulf nations move more of their oil and gas through new or expanded pipelines to the Red Sea and perhaps even the Mediterranean. The faster the world builds those alternatives, the less leverage Iran retains. Many believe that the United States must not allow Iran to control the Strait under any circumstances, and the instinct to fight for Hormuz is understandable. It has been a central artery of global energy for over half a century. But instead of fighting to reopen the Strait, the world should build around it. The infrastructure to do so already exists in embryonic form. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, built during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, carries crude 750 miles across the kingdom from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, with a design capacity of 7 million barrels per day. The UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline runs to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, bypassing the Strait entirely. And Iraq’s Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline connects to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Gulf states are already exploring a broader network of pipelines, railways, and roads, including the U.S.-backed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that would create multiple export routes to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, which have no bypass pipelines at all, should build routes through Saudi Arabia or Iraq, argued The National, a UAE newspaper. And Japan, South Korea, and India should, the paper argued, invest alongside Gulf sovereign wealth funds. Iran will almost certainly impose tolls on vessels transiting the Strait, as its parliament has already passed a bill to formalize fee collection. A toll of $2 to $5 per barrel, the range analysts expect Iran to charge, would add roughly $40 to $100 billion per year to global energy costs. But more war will cause far more harm than simply building alternatives because every escalation destroys infrastructure that the world needs to produce and export energy. While “all roads” may lead to “structurally higher oil prices,” as one analysis of future scenarios concluded, one of those roads leads to far less damage to people and energy infrastructure. Iran’s strikes on Ras Laffan, Qatar’s LNG hub, will take three to five years to repair. The strikes on South Pars threaten the world’s largest natural gas reserve. Iran’s attacks on Gulf neighbors have damaged refineries, desalination plants, and port facilities across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait. And consider how much more damage is possible. After the US struck Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, and Israel hit Iran’s largest petrochemical complex at South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas reserve, Iran’s military threatened to “deprive the U.S. and its allies of the region’s oil and gas for years.” As such, the $40 to $100 billion is a fraction of the $2 trillion or more that Goldman Sachs has estimated the war has already cost the global economy in lost output, destroyed infrastructure, and elevated energy prices. And continued war could lead Iran to cut off the flows of existing Saudi oil flows through its East-West pipeline. Iranian adviser Aliakbar Velayati warned that Iran views the Bab al-Mandab Strait off Yemen “with the same intensity as Hormuz” and that “the flow of energy and global trade can be disrupted with a single signal.” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video.
3:56

The Trump administration underestimated Iran’s willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz, note many in the media. CNN reported that while the Departments of Energy and the Treasury participated in pre-war planning meetings, “the agency analysis and forecasts that would be integral elements of the decision-making process in past administrations were secondary considerations.” But the Strait of Hormuz was a catastrophe waiting to happen. A few years from now, people will look back on this moment and find it incredible that the world allowed the global economy to be dependent on moving so much oil and natural gas through such a dangerous bottleneck. Part of the solution is for the world to reduce its dependence on Persian Gulf oil and gas. That will require expanding production outside the Persian Gulf. Another part is to help Persian Gulf nations move more of their oil and gas through new or expanded pipelines to the Red Sea and perhaps even the Mediterranean. The faster the world builds those alternatives, the less leverage Iran retains. Many believe that the United States must not allow Iran to control the Strait under any circumstances, and the instinct to fight for Hormuz is understandable. It has been a central artery of global energy for over half a century. But instead of fighting to reopen the Strait, the world should build around it. The infrastructure to do so already exists in embryonic form. Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, built during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, carries crude 750 miles across the kingdom from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, with a design capacity of 7 million barrels per day. The UAE’s Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline runs to Fujairah on the Gulf of Oman, bypassing the Strait entirely. And Iraq’s Kirkuk-Ceyhan pipeline connects to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey. Gulf states are already exploring a broader network of pipelines, railways, and roads, including the U.S.-backed India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), that would create multiple export routes to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, which have no bypass pipelines at all, should build routes through Saudi Arabia or Iraq, argued The National, a UAE newspaper. And Japan, South Korea, and India should, the paper argued, invest alongside Gulf sovereign wealth funds. Iran will almost certainly impose tolls on vessels transiting the Strait, as its parliament has already passed a bill to formalize fee collection. A toll of $2 to $5 per barrel, the range analysts expect Iran to charge, would add roughly $40 to $100 billion per year to global energy costs. But more war will cause far more harm than simply building alternatives because every escalation destroys infrastructure that the world needs to produce and export energy. While “all roads” may lead to “structurally higher oil prices,” as one analysis of future scenarios concluded, one of those roads leads to far less damage to people and energy infrastructure. Iran’s strikes on Ras Laffan, Qatar’s LNG hub, will take three to five years to repair. The strikes on South Pars threaten the world’s largest natural gas reserve. Iran’s attacks on Gulf neighbors have damaged refineries, desalination plants, and port facilities across Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait. And consider how much more damage is possible. After the US struck Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub, and Israel hit Iran’s largest petrochemical complex at South Pars, the world’s largest natural gas reserve, Iran’s military threatened to “deprive the U.S. and its allies of the region’s oil and gas for years.” As such, the $40 to $100 billion is a fraction of the $2 trillion or more that Goldman Sachs has estimated the war has already cost the global economy in lost output, destroyed infrastructure, and elevated energy prices. And continued war could lead Iran to cut off the flows of existing Saudi oil flows through its East-West pipeline. Iranian adviser Aliakbar Velayati warned that Iran views the Bab al-Mandab Strait off Yemen “with the same intensity as Hormuz” and that “the flow of energy and global trade can be disrupted with a single signal.” Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative journalism, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video.

Michael Shellenberger

61,948 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Anthony Albanese has just appointed the wrong person to head up the Fuel Taskforce. Albanese is a lifelong waste of taxpayers’ money. But much worse than that, he has been out of his depth for his entire career. He now presents an imminent danger to our nation’s prosperity, national security and strategic preparedness. Many people will suffer for his efforts as push-comes-to-shove in our latest fuel crisis. As they say in the playground “it takes one to know one”, and not to be outdone, Albanese has gone and put a lifelong climate zealot and total waste of taxpayer money, Anthea Harris, in charge of his government’s response to the fuel crisis. The clip below, is Anthea giving an address to the ANU in her capacity as the head of the Climate Change Authority back in 2015. She either believes that all of these non-solutions to the non-climate problem are really necessary - which would make her rather daft - or she knows it is all a complete scam, and she is just a scammer… A professional scammer, living on the taxpayer, and living well at that. More, the net result of her work so far has been to help destroy our energy grid and just about everything else relating to our ability to make and do things in Australia. Because cheap and reliable energy is central to everything. Everything. Whether it is coal, gas or liquid fuels, Australia needs these things to provide a first world living standard for the people. She has been an instrumental part of the war on our living standards thus far. All the while they threw our prosperity in the air, put on a blindfold and hoped to catch it in a windmill shaped glove. Now she is in charge of Albanese’s response to our critical, non-critical supply of petrochemicals that are at crisis levels, but we are not in a crisis. If you believe any of what they say… She is not an expert in logistics, or oil supply, petrochemicals or any other area that might qualify her to ensure we have enough fuel to drive critical infrastructure. Not to mention little things like food reaching the supermarket shelves. She is not the right person for the job. She probably thinks we could use this crisis as an opportunity to further destroy lives and livelihoods as they relentlessly pursue the hopeless goal of changing global temperatures. I am sure she will see it that way. She probably thinks we can all work from home and stop eating meat for the good of the planet. I have no doubt Albanese thinks she will do a great job of whatever it is he thinks he is achieving at our expense. I have no doubt we will be worse off for her best efforts. We have good cause to be very cynical of the current leadership. They won’t even admit there are problems - not in any of the areas where there are many problems - so they won’t be able to properly solve them. We have every right to be worried, and we have little cause to respect them or their leadership at this critical time in our nation’s history. I am afraid that if we don’t vote all of these absolute lightweights out of office at the next election, there won’t be a Nation left. I have no doubt there are problems in the opposition and other camps, but they could not be worse than the problems we have in government. I just want Australia back.
3:03

Anthony Albanese has just appointed the wrong person to head up the Fuel Taskforce. Albanese is a lifelong waste of taxpayers’ money. But much worse than that, he has been out of his depth for his entire career. He now presents an imminent danger to our nation’s prosperity, national security and strategic preparedness. Many people will suffer for his efforts as push-comes-to-shove in our latest fuel crisis. As they say in the playground “it takes one to know one”, and not to be outdone, Albanese has gone and put a lifelong climate zealot and total waste of taxpayer money, Anthea Harris, in charge of his government’s response to the fuel crisis. The clip below, is Anthea giving an address to the ANU in her capacity as the head of the Climate Change Authority back in 2015. She either believes that all of these non-solutions to the non-climate problem are really necessary - which would make her rather daft - or she knows it is all a complete scam, and she is just a scammer… A professional scammer, living on the taxpayer, and living well at that. More, the net result of her work so far has been to help destroy our energy grid and just about everything else relating to our ability to make and do things in Australia. Because cheap and reliable energy is central to everything. Everything. Whether it is coal, gas or liquid fuels, Australia needs these things to provide a first world living standard for the people. She has been an instrumental part of the war on our living standards thus far. All the while they threw our prosperity in the air, put on a blindfold and hoped to catch it in a windmill shaped glove. Now she is in charge of Albanese’s response to our critical, non-critical supply of petrochemicals that are at crisis levels, but we are not in a crisis. If you believe any of what they say… She is not an expert in logistics, or oil supply, petrochemicals or any other area that might qualify her to ensure we have enough fuel to drive critical infrastructure. Not to mention little things like food reaching the supermarket shelves. She is not the right person for the job. She probably thinks we could use this crisis as an opportunity to further destroy lives and livelihoods as they relentlessly pursue the hopeless goal of changing global temperatures. I am sure she will see it that way. She probably thinks we can all work from home and stop eating meat for the good of the planet. I have no doubt Albanese thinks she will do a great job of whatever it is he thinks he is achieving at our expense. I have no doubt we will be worse off for her best efforts. We have good cause to be very cynical of the current leadership. They won’t even admit there are problems - not in any of the areas where there are many problems - so they won’t be able to properly solve them. We have every right to be worried, and we have little cause to respect them or their leadership at this critical time in our nation’s history. I am afraid that if we don’t vote all of these absolute lightweights out of office at the next election, there won’t be a Nation left. I have no doubt there are problems in the opposition and other camps, but they could not be worse than the problems we have in government. I just want Australia back.

Matthew Camenzuli

12,957 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW
9:05

“There’s a doomsday view of climate change,” said Bill Gates on Tuesday. “Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong….People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future. Emissions projections have gone down, and with the right policies and investments, innovation will allow us to drive emissions down much further.” In truth, Gates significantly understates just how wrong the doomsday problem is, says one of the world’s most influential climate scientists. “The weakest part of the argument has always been that warming is dangerous,” says Judy Curry, professor emerita at Georgia Tech University, in a new podcast with me. “It isn’t really. More people die from the cold than the heat. So this is probably a net benefit globally. Where’s the danger here?” Some climate scientists say Curry is a global warming denier, hasn’t done the research that they have done, and participated in a Trump administration misinformation effort. But Curry recognizes that the Earth is warming and that humans are contributing. Curry points out that “the modern warming started in the mid-19th century, somewhere between 1820 and 1860, following the end of the Little Ice Age. We’ve been warming since then. Nothing particularly surprising or unusual in my opinion. Is increasing CO₂ contributing to that? Yes.” The fact that warming has been beneficial “doesn’t mean that we should ignore the problem” she stresses and “doesn’t mean that we should keep pouring junk into the atmosphere. And Curry’s qualifications are exemplary. She frequently testifies before Congress and was one of five American scientists who conducted an independent review of climate science for the Department of Energy. And has done significantly more climate research than many of her critics. “I’m the one who’s done more climate dynamics research,” she noted. In truth, scientists have for decades been exaggerating the human impact compared to what nature does. When asked what percentage of the warming she would ascribe to humans, Curry said, “I would say I wouldn’t go much more than 50%.” Curry says, “We’ve mischaracterized the contributions from the sun and also from internal variability of the large-scale ocean circulation.” As a result, she said, “We cannot control the climate. There’s a whole lot of complicated processes going on in the climate system that have been oversimplified or ignored and fall broadly under the rubric of natural climate variability.” Curry notes that science supporting the benefits of additional carbon dioxide and warming is strong and not in dispute. “There are lots of benefits in terms of agricultural productivity, greening of the planet, fewer cold events, more rain in certain regions that with high populations that could use it,” said Curry. We discussed the criticisms of her and four colleagues who wrote the independent review of climate science commissioned by the Trump administration. “They say, ‘Oh, it’s not just CO₂, it’s also warmer temperatures and more rainfall,’” she said, referring to one of the criticisms by other scientists in Carbon Brief. “‘Aren’t you telling us that’s also caused by CO₂?’ So I don’t get what the gripe is. We’re gone through that section and added some updated references, but the fundamental story is unchanged.” As I documented at length at Forbes in 2019, in Apocalypse Never in 2020, and here at Public since 2021, including earlier this week, climate scientists, activists, and journalists have grossly exaggerated climate change to such an extent that much of what they say today must be considered disinformation, in that they know they are leaving the public with false ideas. “Global greening gets very short shrift in the [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] IPCC report,” she notes. “They don’t talk about the reduction in mortality from reduced number of cold events. They only talk about the mortality from heat events. It’s part of the rules – we’re only talking about dangerous human-caused climate change, not about any benefits from human cause.” But what is the reason for this? What explains why the scientific community has misled the public about the nature of the problem for so long? Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning investigative reporting, read the full article, and listen to the entire podcast! FULL VIDEO AND ARTICLE CLICK BELOW

Michael Shellenberger

66,544 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

"This current government(new order) must be truncated...."-Aregbesola I shook my head in pity for Ogbeni yesterday when he uttered this particular statement while hosting some politically homeless wanderers in his compound. To truncate Tinubu government means that we should go back to the era of half or no salary payment for workers..... Era of total dependence of state governments on FG bailouts and Commercial Banks overdraft. Era of petrol subsidy and long queues at filling stations. Era of dollar racketeering. Era of unremitted obligations to foreign airlines and other foreign investors. Era when locally produced food items were more expensive than the imported ones. Era when voters would be on queue, but election results were being announced on radio stations. Era of OBJ's do or die politics! Era when billions of dollars developed wings and flew away from NNPC without the knowledge of CBN. Era when Foreign Reserve was drained beyond imagination! It is ridiculous to see that two years after Ogbeni left political office, since 1999, and now that governors are clearing unpaid workers' salaries spanning dozens of months, and paying the newly increased minimum wage, settling foreign obligations, creating enabling biz environment, giving tertiary students support, increasing our oil production and earnings, embarking on infrastructural revolution, crashing inflation, increasing reserves, wooing investors and combating insecurity among others, Aregbe is still adoring the past dark Era! What a shame!
0:22

"This current government(new order) must be truncated...."-Aregbesola I shook my head in pity for Ogbeni yesterday when he uttered this particular statement while hosting some politically homeless wanderers in his compound. To truncate Tinubu government means that we should go back to the era of half or no salary payment for workers..... Era of total dependence of state governments on FG bailouts and Commercial Banks overdraft. Era of petrol subsidy and long queues at filling stations. Era of dollar racketeering. Era of unremitted obligations to foreign airlines and other foreign investors. Era when locally produced food items were more expensive than the imported ones. Era when voters would be on queue, but election results were being announced on radio stations. Era of OBJ's do or die politics! Era when billions of dollars developed wings and flew away from NNPC without the knowledge of CBN. Era when Foreign Reserve was drained beyond imagination! It is ridiculous to see that two years after Ogbeni left political office, since 1999, and now that governors are clearing unpaid workers' salaries spanning dozens of months, and paying the newly increased minimum wage, settling foreign obligations, creating enabling biz environment, giving tertiary students support, increasing our oil production and earnings, embarking on infrastructural revolution, crashing inflation, increasing reserves, wooing investors and combating insecurity among others, Aregbe is still adoring the past dark Era! What a shame!

Ayekooto

30,241 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Wisconsin Dairy Farmer has just received a letter with new regulations that must be followed or farmers can no longer sell their milk The new requirements are to meet climate net-zero ESG goals “Letter in the mail from their milk processing plant that states that they are updating their sustainable agriculture policy — and I already got a phone call from the people that are collecting the information that is required for your dairy farm. It starts out by saying that we understand that this might feel like another requirement, but it's not because it's an industry-led effort to recognize and measure the sustainable practices you're already doing every day. Your participation helps shape the future of dairy farming in ensures your voice is part of the solution. So I laugh at this because it is voluntary if you want to sell your milk because if you don't participate in this, the milk processing plant will not be able to take your milk because the people that are above them, the actual sellers like Nestle and Danone and all the other big food giants will not allow the milk processing plant, to take your milk. Now it feels like blackmail, but according to the definition of blackmail, it is not blackmail. But if you don't participate, you can't sell your milk” “hey need to know herd data, nutrition data, energy data, in terms of total terms of natural gas, total gallons of diesel. Now mind you, this is for a whole year. Total gallons of propane, total gallons of biodiesel, and total kilowatts of electricity for 12 months. Yep, voluntary, totally….” The request focuses on annual farm-level data for a full year to calculate metrics like carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and overall sustainability performance. Common categories include: • Herd data: Herd size, milk production (e.g., total pounds or cwt of milk), number of cows, possibly reproduction or health metrics to estimate feed efficiency and enteric methane. • Nutrition/feed data: Ration details, feed ingredients, intake amounts—to assess nutrient use efficiency and emissions from feed production/digestion. • Energy data (as you noted): • Total natural gas usage (e.g., for heating or drying). • Total gallons of diesel (e.g., for tractors, equipment). • Total gallons of propane. • Total gallons of biodiesel (if used). • Total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity for 12 months (e.g., milking, cooling, ventilation, lighting). These inputs feed into tools that estimate GHG emissions This is an industry-led effort through programs like the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy’s Net Zero Initiative This is how they shut down small farmers
1:45

Wisconsin Dairy Farmer has just received a letter with new regulations that must be followed or farmers can no longer sell their milk The new requirements are to meet climate net-zero ESG goals “Letter in the mail from their milk processing plant that states that they are updating their sustainable agriculture policy — and I already got a phone call from the people that are collecting the information that is required for your dairy farm. It starts out by saying that we understand that this might feel like another requirement, but it's not because it's an industry-led effort to recognize and measure the sustainable practices you're already doing every day. Your participation helps shape the future of dairy farming in ensures your voice is part of the solution. So I laugh at this because it is voluntary if you want to sell your milk because if you don't participate in this, the milk processing plant will not be able to take your milk because the people that are above them, the actual sellers like Nestle and Danone and all the other big food giants will not allow the milk processing plant, to take your milk. Now it feels like blackmail, but according to the definition of blackmail, it is not blackmail. But if you don't participate, you can't sell your milk” “hey need to know herd data, nutrition data, energy data, in terms of total terms of natural gas, total gallons of diesel. Now mind you, this is for a whole year. Total gallons of propane, total gallons of biodiesel, and total kilowatts of electricity for 12 months. Yep, voluntary, totally….” The request focuses on annual farm-level data for a full year to calculate metrics like carbon footprint, energy efficiency, and overall sustainability performance. Common categories include: • Herd data: Herd size, milk production (e.g., total pounds or cwt of milk), number of cows, possibly reproduction or health metrics to estimate feed efficiency and enteric methane. • Nutrition/feed data: Ration details, feed ingredients, intake amounts—to assess nutrient use efficiency and emissions from feed production/digestion. • Energy data (as you noted): • Total natural gas usage (e.g., for heating or drying). • Total gallons of diesel (e.g., for tractors, equipment). • Total gallons of propane. • Total gallons of biodiesel (if used). • Total kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity for 12 months (e.g., milking, cooling, ventilation, lighting). These inputs feed into tools that estimate GHG emissions This is an industry-led effort through programs like the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy’s Net Zero Initiative This is how they shut down small farmers

Wall Street Apes

557,190 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce