First word

PEOPLE who waver between belief and rejection of the theology of climate change should read three current articles on the climate issue that seriously place in grave doubt and suspicion the raison d'être of the UN-led climate movement.

Together, these reports bring out the latest findings and opinions of scientists and experts on the climate issue. Each article reports a major development that places the debate in a fresh light.

1."California's war on gas vehicles threatens US economy," by Shane Harris, AMAC Newsline (Aug. 27, 2022);

2. "UN's net-zero plan is the real climate catastrophe," by Duggan Flanakin, RealClear Energy website (Aug. 29, 2022);

Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times’ daily newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

3. "Joe Biden exacerbates America's energy crisis" by Daniel Turner, RealClear Energy website (Aug. 29, 2022).

California declares war on gas vehicles

The August 27 report of Shane Harris in AMAC Newsline shows how lunatic the California state government has become about the climate issue. He reported:

"On Thursday, August 25, California regulators voted to require that all new passenger cars and trucks sold in the state run on electricity or hydrogen after 2035, the latest move by state officials to 'phase out' the use of all gas and diesel-powered vehicles. In addition to posing a severe challenge for California's already strained power grid, the decision threatens to send the state's economy tumbling — likely taking the rest of the country with it.

"The new rule, which was released by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) two years after Gov. Gavin Newsom first directed the Board to consider such a policy, was hailed as a major victory for environmental activists, even as economists and engineers expressed major reservations. According to the policy, 35 percent of new passenger vehicles sold by 2026 must produce 'zero emissions,' a requirement that climbs to 68 percent by 2030. By 2035, one-fifth of new car sales in the state can be plug-in hybrids (electric vehicles that switch over to a gas-powered engine for longer distances), but the rest must be powered solely by electricity or hydrogen.

"Though California leads the country in number of registered EVs by far — more than 550,000 — that figure still pales in comparison to the more than 30 million total registered vehicles in the state. In the first three months of this year, just 16 percent of new cars sold in California were electric, a percentage that would have to more than double in just four years in order to be in compliance with the plan.

"There are major doubts about whether or not California's energy grid will even be able to handle the increase in demand brought on by such a large increase in the number of EVs on the road in such a short time.

Banning gas cars in California is also likely to have ripple effects throughout the rest of the US economy ... The problems that this decision poses for California are thus likely to be exported to other states, whether they agree with the policy or not.

"With fewer gas cars on the road, many gas stations will likely go out of business, making it more difficult for those with gas cars to get around. In addition to posing a severe burden on people in rural parts of the state, this will also discourage tourism from other states, an industry that contributes more than $100 billion annually to California's economy.

"At the same time as this policy is going into effect on passenger vehicles, a series of perhaps even more devastating laws and regulations are also set to take effect to 'phase out' medium- and heavy-duty gas- and diesel-powered trucks. On Jan. 1, 2023, some 76,000 trucks with engines built before 2010 will no longer be allowed to operate under a different set of CARB regulations. By 2040, all new medium- and heavy-duty trucks sold in the state must also be fully electric — posing an enormous cost for transportation companies, which will no doubt be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices."

Biden worsens US energy crisis

In his August 29 article in the RealClear Energy website, "Joe Biden exacerbates America's energy crisis," Daniel Turner writes about how the Biden administration is killing or slowing down oil, natural gas and coal production by "weaponizing" agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC).

"The Biden Administration's war on fossil fuels is multi-pronged. Go after their financing through the ultra-woke ESG movement threatening banks from lending them the necessary capital. Go after their permitting with endless slow-walking by the bureaucrats in the Department of Interior. And go after the infrastructure by weaponizing agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) by stopping pipelines and other necessary projects.

"While doing all this with one hand, you pour billions into unreliable wind and solar with the other.

Recently the American people watched Democrats in Congress jam through a massive, partisan climate change spending package. The $369 billion law is crammed with special-interest giveaways to the green energy sector, huge sums to hire 87,000 more IRS agents, and the establishment of a national green bank. It received zero Republican support and will be a major point of contention come Election Day.

"Back in February, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, made an incredible political power play and almost got away with it. This relatively unknown five-person commission is tasked with, among other things, regulating the transmission of natural gas. That includes the approval of new natural gas projects like pipelines. The balance of power on the commission swings as the White House changes hands, so currently there are three Democratic commissioners and just two Republicans.

"During the commission's February meeting, Richard Glick, FERC's Democratic chairman and his two fellow Democratic commissioners pushed through a policy designed to block construction of natural gas infrastructure. This rule would force private companies applying for permits to account for all greenhouse gas emissions from a pipeline project, that is, from production upstream all the way to combustion downstream. This task is basically impossible — which is the point.

"Glick and his cohort used climate change as the defense for the new rule and argued they were compelled to take this action by the courts. But that argument didn't hold water with Congress. The bipartisan leaders of the Senate energy and natural resource committee, chairman Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Ranking Member John Barrasso (R-WY), took major issue with FERC's new, completely unjustified policy. They dragged Glick and his fellow Democratic commissioners up to the committee to explain themselves."

The real catastrophe

Also in RealClear Energy, Duggan Flanakin published on August 29 a critique of the UN plan for zero emissions ("UN's net-zero plan is the real catastrophe"). He wrote:

"Putin's bloody invasion of Ukraine is an affront to humanity, given his targeting of civilians.

"But Putin's invasion may be saving Europe — and other nations — from their blind devotion to the 'climate catastrophe' movement and the worldwide push to 'Net Zero by 2050.' Even before Putin's war disrupted European energy supplies vastly increased energy costs, Europeans were suffering from senseless 'green' energy policies imposed in the name of 'saving the planet.'

"The radical Net Zero plan, crafted by the United Nations and endorsed by such entities as the World Economic Forum, would press nations to abdicate reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and even hydroelectric dams in favor of so-called 'green energy' that is not that green and does not generate and transmit reliable, affordable energy.

"Chief architects UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UN climate chief Christina Figueres crafted a plan that granted absolute dictatorial power to national governments to act under UN mandates to destroy the fossil fuel, livestock and other industries.

"Their collectivist, totalitarian plans were said to be based on claims that relatively minor increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would (according to unchecked science fiction writers) submerge the Statue of Liberty, raise sea levels to kill or displace billions, and burn up land long devoted to agriculture.

"Ordinary humans, they argued, must substitute plant-based 'meats' and eschew even seafood, drive only electric vehicles, and downsize their lifestyles (except for the elites, whose lifestyles would remain opulent).

"Signs that the scientific community may soon be ending its love affair with climate catastrophe policies come from, of all places, scientific commentaries on the brand-new Summary for Policymakers of the AR6 WGI report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). NASA climate advisor Gavin Schmidt, for example, has criticized the IPCC models as unrealistic and not backed by data.

"Maybe now the world is ready to listen to the 1,100-plus scientists and experts, led by Norwegian Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, who signed onto the new Climate Intelligence (Clintel) statement that 'there is no climate emergency.' The independent international foundation asserts that, 'Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.'

"The just-released Clintel document states that natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause climate change, and everyone really knows that the Earth's climate has varied as long as the planet has existed — with natural cold and warm phases.

"Not only have IPCC-favored climate models exaggerated the effect of greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide), they have also ignored the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 has many benefits. The fact is that CO2 is essential for all life on Earth, and that additional CO2 in the atmosphere promotes growth in global plant biomass and increases crop yields worldwide.

"Moreover, said the scientists and experts, there is no statistical evidence that warming global temperatures have intensified hurricanes, floods, droughts, and such-like natural disasters, nor that they have made them more frequent."

[email protected]