Charles Moore: Trump has broken the spell of climate change mania

Posted: June 2, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, opinion, Politics

Climate crisis? [credit: BBC]

Not before time. Global temperatures haven’t been co-operating much with negative climate obsessions either.
H/T Daily Telegraph @ The GWPF.

Since Mr Trump walked out of the Paris agreement one year ago, it has been fascinating to watch the decline of media interest in “saving the planet”.

Donald Trump imposed punitive tariffs on steel imports exactly a year after he announced that the US would withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement. The two decisions are unrelated, except that both reflect the character of his presidency.

President Trump looks at any international arrangement on any subject – Iran, North Korea, trade, climate – and asks himself whether it is a good deal for America. If he thinks it is not, he starts making trouble. He loves a deal but, unlike some politicians on this side of the water, he sees no point in a bad deal.

When President Trump starts the trouble, he does not necessarily know where it will end. He is, if you like, open-minded; or, if you don’t like, irresponsible. He just wants a result, and will pull back if he thinks he won’t get the right one. In the case of his trade war, he will succeed if his action exposes unfair practices by trade rivals and forces them to change. He will fail if all he does is put up everyone’s prices, including, of course, America’s.

In the case of the Paris process, he has succeeded almost without trying. The answer to the question, “Which major country in the world has most successfully reduced its CO2 emissions?” is, “The United States of America”. US emissions hit a 25-year low last year. This success has nothing to do with the UN caravan, which has rolled on for 30 years, or, indeed, with Mr Trump. It has everything to do with the shale revolution – the triumph of much cleaner fossil fuels. Energy prices are falling.

By contrast, the greenest of the great economic powers, Germany and Japan, have poured money into renewables. They are consuming more coal than before, however, with Japan planning 36 new coal-fired power stations over the next 10 years. Since renewables are not reliable (because of intermittency), Germany must have more coal or lie prostrate before Mr Putin and his gas. Both Germany and Japan are increasing their carbon footprint because they have run away from nuclear. Energy prices are rising. China, after a slowdown, is increasing its CO2 emissions fast once again.

As for “Paris”, this is failing, chiefly for the reason that poorer countries won’t decarbonise unless richer ones pay them stupendous sums. The amount supposedly required to do this, agreed at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, was $100 billion a year, every year, from 2020; but no mechanism could be devised to compel the poor countries to restrict their emissions. At yet another conference in the process, in Bonn last month, the parties broke up without agreement on handing the money across. It is almost impossible to imagine real agreement, because it would be unenforceable.

If you look back, you can see that Copenhagen was the first ebbing of climate panic.

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    The 2016/17 El Niño temp spike looks to be fizzling out, just like the 1998 one did.

  2. oldbrew says:

    The Short and Simple on Why Climate Alarmism Is Nonsense
    Alan Carlin | June 1, 2018

    Now that the alleged end of oil and gas has been postponed far into the future, the only remaining argument for reducing CO2 emissions is that using wind and solar will supposedly reduce the the alleged catastrophic increases in global temperatures. And since recent econometric research has found that changes in atmospheric CO2 have no significant effect on temperatures, alarmists are left with no argument at all–just pleas for endless subsidies and propaganda for increasing the cost of electric power.
    – – –
    And yet many governments accept any old tosh that supports their barmy urge to throw money at overpriced intermittent renewables like unreliable wind and sun-dependent panels.

  3. Graeme No.3 says:

    I think it has something to do with the economies of Europe and Japan being taxed almost to a standstill and therefore failing to respond to ‘keynesian stimulus’. Faced with the failure of their preferred method of spending their way out of trouble the leaders of those economies decided to ‘flog the dead horse’ even more. That hasn’t worked either, but it requires someone NEW to change the policies. No hope of that in the EU but one day someone is going to notice the boom in the USA and decide to do the same.

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    I’ve made a lot of deals. Not as many as Trump, and certainly not nearly as large. My largest was only a few $Million hardware purchase.

    When I see Trump in action, I see classical negotiating. You DO NOT TIP YOUR HAND. You DO make the other guy think you are happy to just walk away. (It is important for you to actually be willing to walk away at all times).

    When the other guy tosses a demand at you (and especially if he acts like he’s interested in walking away or jerking you around), you call them on it AND WALK AWAY. Perhaps only to get coffee. Perhaps cancelling the meeting. Perhaps showing them the door with a “don’t call me I’ll call you”. It all depends on the context.

    You NEVER WANT THE DEAL. Used car makers always push you to have an emotional commitment. Love the car. Want it now. Just sign here… You want to make them want the deal more than you.

    Now with just that much in mind, you can “explain” Trump.

    Is his reasoning and motive baffling? “never tip your hand”.

    Has he made sharp demands? Threatened to walk away? “I am willing to walk away”.

    Talked up the good to the other guy and bitch about what you get? “Make them want the deal”.

    It really isn’t hard to follow. Just don’t think of him as a politician wanting to make everyone in the “deal” happy. At the end of the day he wants the MOST out of any deal that he can get, and if the deal is not a big WIN, is willing to cancel it or walk away from it. And that’s a good thing.

  5. oldmanK says:

    E M Smith’s post is intriguing. Fate also has posted me in spots where I had to make a few deals. Biggest hardware deal several 10’s of millions. (plus a lot of worry and stomach acid)

    What is described is the classical psychological side of dealing. What one generally finds at a market. But in costly deals there is a more important side. ‘Know what you want to buy’ and understand the purchase. If the other side gets wind that you have little knowledge of the fruit you want, likely you get offered the most rotten lemon in the crate. The buyer sets the level of quality, but only if he knows it.

  6. Tenuc says:

    Now compare how NOT to negotiate and lose the Brexit deal the Terry May way:

    Concede the ~£50 BILLION exit fee before negotiations even begin.

    Publicly declare that you need the deal.

    Never walk away from the talks.

    Let other members of your organisation meddle in the negotiations, moving the goalposts at least once a week.

    Due to lack of cooperation with EU, Terry needs to take the £50b off the table today – walk away from the deal – threaten to make UK a free-trade zone.

    Then sit back with a nice cup of tea and watch the EU have a heart attack first,and then come to their senses. The fact of the matter is that they need the deal (and the money) much much more than we do.

  7. […] at ‘green’ hysteria and say: no deal (see also at GWPF, Notalotofpeopleknowthat and Tallbloke) he understands not only the impact of Trump withdrawing from the climate agreement on future […]