The mainstream media are gearing up to bombard people with terms like “climate emergency,” “climate justice” and “climate equity” in anticipation of this week’s start of the 28th United Nations Conference of the Parties in Dubai.
They might even introduce catchphrases and announce historic breakthroughs in emission-reduction diplomacy. The public relations messaging of climate politics, however, has little connection with the economic realities of countries such as India that require heavy use of fossil fuels.
As politicians in fuel-guzzling jets prepare to descend on Dubai and lecture poor countries on energy morality, India is sending a subtle yet clear message that it is not giving up coal, oil and natural gas.
In India, elephants reign supreme, capturing the hearts of those who encounter them. With a staggering 32,000 elephants, the sprawling tropical forests of India are home to the sixth-largest population of these majestic creatures. In my formative years, I had the privilege of visiting these gentle giants in their native domain.
In recent years, I’ve witnessed my native country rise as a metaphorical elephant that refuses to go away.
India — along with China and African and Southeast Asian nations — has become the “elephant in the room” at the yearly U.N, climate gatherings. Leaders of the subcontinent have steadfastly asserted the country’s right to use fossil fuels, unwilling to comply with restrictive U.N. recommendations for energy policy.
The U.N. climate conference in 2015 was hailed as a pivotal moment as it sparked the creation of the Paris Agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels. But even at that time, India’s resistance was unmistakable.
During the formulation of the agreement, India vehemently opposed the imposition of stringent emission-reduction mandates on its economy. It played an integral role in devising of the term “climate justice” while arguing that economic progress should not be sacrificed by restrictions on the use of fossil fuels.
In its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution — a document where individual countries outlined their level of commitment to the Paris accord — India made clear that it would not compromise domestic energy security at the altar of climate religion.
At the 2022 gathering in Egypt, climate luminaries put forth a pioneering proposition to phase out all fossil fuels. Again, India persistently opposed such a course of action, opting instead to pursue a “phase down” rather than a “phaseout” of fossil fuels. With no intention to decrease its consumption of fossil fuels, the country has boldly put off net zero, the holy grail of the climate-obsessed, until 2070.
Unbeknownst to many, Indian Power Minister R.K. Singh conceded in August that meeting the burgeoning energy needs of a developing country like India would be unattainable without a noticeable escalation in the utilization of fossil fuels.
“If you have an economy that is growing at 7%, electricity from coal will also grow,” he said. “We will meet the energy requirement for our growth because we have a right to grow.”
CNBC reports unanimous agreement among analysts that India’s solar, wind and hydro energy capabilities are deemed unreliable to support growing power needs. Sooraj Narayan, Wood Mackenzie’s senior research analyst, says that India’s “heightened power demand necessitates a reliable, cost-effective, and consistent power generation source, which coal currently fulfills.”
India is the world’s second-highest user of coal and third-largest consumer of oil. India has had a dramatic surge in coal imports from Indonesia and is seeking new markets from which to buy coal. Many new mines are being opened annually.
At the G20 summit earlier this year, India proposed a new strategy called “multiple pathways” that seeks unabated, continued use of fossil fuels — a direct contradiction of the West’s decarbonization schemes. This conflict may reemerge at the upcoming U.N. climate gathering.
Major developing economies seem unfazed by the yearly U.N. climate conference as they continue to meet energy needs with hydrocarbons. With the world relying on fossil fuels for 80% of its primary energy, this dependence is expected to grow with an increasing number of people trading poverty for prosperity in the coming decades.
Announcements about emission-reduction breakthroughs at these events are little more than flimsy shields trying to hide an elephant the climate elite refuses to acknowledge. The reality of economic imperatives, however, will eventually expose the folly of decarbonization plans.
This commentary was first published at Washington Times on November 28, 2023.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK.
Meanwhile, Commie Pope Calls for Elimination of Fossil Fuels in Historic Speech at Cop28 Conference
and
and
John Kerry promises to shut down all coal production in the U.S. by 2030
….buy Popcorn Futures….
Why is the UN bothering with COPfest 28 when it should be in Gaza, Venezuela, Yemen and Ukraine? Worthless bunch of senile cretins.
He holds a master’s degree in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, UK.
That must make them weep, but gives me hope
Yup I think he was one of the few that got through uncontaminated.
Probably wouldn’t let Vijay into the PhD program.
Again, a glimmer of hope. The debate is moving to the energy proposals of the activists. Everyone still feels the obligation to testify to their belief in global warming. But then, after they have established they really are members of the Party in good standing, they go on to explain that reduction of emissions is not really possible, affordable or even desirable.
A classic example of this emerging trend is Peter Lilley, former UK Cabinet Minister, and one of only 5 MPs who voted against the idiotic UK Climate Change Act 2008. Writing in the Telegraph today he says, in a piece headed “Cop28 should prompt a net zero rethink’:
I was one of the “Infamous Five” who voted against that Act. Not because I doubted the science – I studied physics at Cambridge and know the basic science of global warming is rock solid.
So now we have got that out of the way, I am not a denier, no, I am a card carrying member totally devoted to the inspiring leadership of the Party…. But I do just wonder a bit about some of the policies of some elements:
….I had read the Impact Assessment – the cost-benefit analysis – which governments must produce for any Bill. Officials said I was the only MP to ask for a copy. It showed that the potential cost was twice the maximum benefit. Unless you disputed the accuracy of the Impact Assessment (which no one did), no rational person could vote for the Act. But, then and since, our political class has put reason aside, preferring to use this issue for virtue signalling…..
….Of course, if it were true that any delay would risk the extinction of humanity – as implied by the very name Extinction Rebellion, and claims by our leaders that climate change is “an existential threat”– no cost would be too great to avoid such a fate.
So, I asked ministers if they know of any peer-reviewed study accepted by the IPCC (the UN body established to assess the science of global warming) that forecasts the extinction of humanity if the world takes no action to phase out fossil fuels. The answer was clear: there are none.
Nor is there a serious threat of humankind being reduced to poverty, hunger and wretchedness if we don’t reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The central conclusion of Lord Stern’s official review of the economics of climate change was that if the world does nothing – not if we do not do enough, but if we do nothing – it would be equivalent to making us all 5 per cent poorer than we would otherwise be, now and forever. But a 5 per cent loss does not remotely amount to impoverishment of the human race, just setting us back by two or three years’ growth.
More recently, Prof Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Prize in 2018 for assessing the costs and benefits of action on climate change, concluded that the optimum target for the world to aim for is not 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, but nearer to 3C, which means there may be scope to delay our net zero target beyond 2050.
And he then quotes from the IPCC:
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers. Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socio-economic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”
That was fairly brave by contemporary standards.
I am starting to think, when considering all this and adding it to the pronouncements by India and by the COP28 President, and the increasing evidence from experience that wind and solar are technologies that are not fit for purpose, that we may just possibly be approaching Peak Warming!
It is still not permissible in polite society to admit to believing that the whole climate crisis narrative is just mass hysteria on the part of the chattering classes. But the story is unravelling from the bottom, its now becoming acceptable to say that of course climate change is real and caused by human emissions, but current policies are neither necessary, possible nor affordable.
This week there is likely to be a small rebellion in the UK House of Commons on whether to impose EV production quotas on manufacturers. There is a distinct smell of something burning. Time to check out the exits.
I wasn’t aware Peter Lilley was a proper scientist.
Nor was I aware he voted against the CCA.
It gives one hope that people like him, Steve Baker and a few others are fighting our corner in the House of Commons and, of course, Matt Ridley in the House of Lords.
I’ll make particular note here of Craig Mackinlay MP; another scientist (Zoologist, as is Matt Ridley) but also a Chartered Accountant. He was a member of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) which mocked the climate nonsense, before he joined the conservative party.
“Mackinlay leads the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, a group created in 2021 of about 20 Conservative MPs who argue against the Westminster consensus to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 regardless of the economic cost. They have argued for fracking in the UK to be resumed and cast doubt on plans to phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles.” (Wikipedia)
Thankfully there are some cool heads working on behalf of the British public.
Lilley was also on the HoC (science 7 technology??) committee that ‘investigated’ Climategate, along with Graham Stringer. From memory (so could be wrong) they were the only members of the committee with science qualifications. Those two did make some attempt to steer away from the final report (which was, inevitably, a whitewash). Stringer is still an MP and has been attacked for ‘climate change denialism’ by (notionally) his own side.
Rock solid?
Defined by “the basic science” which is an ever moving target. He knows precisely what he’s saying. His basic science may not come to the conclusions that the alarmist basic science reach.
‘His basic science may not come to the conclusions that the alarmist basic science reach.’
JZ’s correct. If his understanding of the ‘basic science’ doesn’t support climate alarmism, he should have directly said so.
When was the last time any politician “said so”?
In a caveman voice, “rock solid, bullshit stink.”
More like “rocky.”
The radiative properties of CO2 is an established scientific fact. The Leftist speculative hysteria piled on top of that fact is the problem.
”Global warming” as a concept is based on a statistical construct with no physical meaning in the real world.
Sounds like Truth to me.
The last time there was a distinct smell of burning in Parliament was 1834 where most of it went up in flames and had to be rebuilt – it could be both a precedent and a metaphor.
“I studied physics at Cambridge and know the basic science of global warming is rock solid.” [Peter Lilly ]
liquefaction comes to mind — when rock solid becomes liquid slush.
VJ Ramjam you are, yet again, a muppet
What you say is fine, dandy and all very lovely – assuming that there is an infinite/everlasting supply of fossils.
Even for the fantastical & surreal ivory-towerland that is = University East Anglia, I really do struggle to see that that is what they taught you there.
Umm. Without being quite so blunt, this is indeed the other elephant in the room.
Places like the USA who can continue to access fossil fuels at reasonable prices, can talk about the simple abandonment of net zero targets, but places that have no access to fossil, or restricted access, or who are held to ransom by the nations that supply them, have no option but to pursue a policy of at least partial ‘decarbonization’.
Dealing with loss of access to fossil energy is what this conference seems to be turning into, not climate change. And that loss is real, is existential, and does demand real action – not just hand waving virtue signalling.
The growing loss of confidence in sunbeams and fairy farts to provide the requisite energy to run a post modern technical society on, leaves anyone who is au fait with the realities of power generation, only one alternative – massive deployment of (some sort of) nuclear power.
The nations that are most affected by this end of cheap oil and gas are typically European nations whose coal is all but exhausted, and some SE Asian nations who never had oil and gas in the first place. Japan springs to mind. And New Zealand, though they have hydro enough for now.
And of course cash rich Oil states who know how low their accessible reserves are running…
These form the de facto group that is now calling for new nuclear.
From World Nuclear News
Now note the careful weaselling:
And yet everyone knows that a reliable 274×7 dispatchable source of non fossil energy available on millennial timescales and economically far superior to fairy farts will in the end require no particular arguments to dispose of renewable energy. It (renewable energy) will be shown for what it is – the Emperor’s new green clothes.
The delicious irony of those that claim renewables are cheaper, is to throw that argument back in their faces and let them compete on level terms with nuclear power.
“places that have no access to fossil”
Not on their own land, maybe- but they can buy on the world market- and if unimpeded, the market will deliver at a good price too.
“Not on their own land, maybe- but they can buy on the world market- and if unimpeded, the market will deliver at a good price too.”
JAPAN…one of the leading economies in the world and virtually no natural resources.
On the other hand, lets not forget that the lack of resources led Japan to conquer other nations to have access to the resources they had and Japan wanted. Ultimately, to buy on the world market, a nation must have something others want.
They manufacture a heck of an auto!
What evidence is there that fossil fuels are, or may become, in short supply?
Quite apart from anything else there is estimated to be 1,000+ years supply of Methane Hydrate in the world;
“….methane hydrate deposits are believed to be a larger hydrocarbon resource than all of the world’s oil, natural gas and coal resources combined.” (Geology.com).
No economically feasible method of “mining” those methane hydrates has ever been developed.
I was going to make the same point. Even if some can be harvested, that doesn’t mean that there is a practical and economical way to access the full “1,000+ years supply.” A cited value of a resource does not automatically equate to a reserve that can be used.
The Chinese and Japanese have done it on a small scale.
It’s currently not economical to harvest it, but it will be if we ever see the end of fossil fuels.
Thanks, H.S. I, too, question that the Earth will ever ‘run out’ of what is called ‘fossil fuels’. We continue to discover new, large sources.
Peta of Newark, there is no shortage of carbon in form of either coal or hydrocarbons in the Earth’s crust. Considering the eventual stabilization of the world’s population that will be followed stabilization of the world’s energy needs, there is enough carbon for many generations.
As politicians in fuel-guzzling jets prepare to descend on Dubai…
broadcaster Chris Packham has filed a High Court legal challenge to the government against a decision to weaken key climate policies.
Packham, a veteran environmental campaigner, has applied for a judicial review of the government’s decision to ditch the timetable for phasing out petrol and diesel powered cars and vans and a delay to the phase-out of new gas boilers.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chris-packham-climate-change-uk-goverment-b2457671.html
What a ……
Here a clip from the story. Can’t believe this will get anywhere in the courts. But who knows…?
Packham said: “We are in a crisis which threatens the whole world, everything living is in danger, including all of us.
“We have the potential to reduce that threat, we have the solutions and we have plans and targets. We must not divert from these.
“To do so on a whim for short-term political gain is reckless and betrays a disregard for the future security of the planet.”
Packham argued that the emissions reductions from the vehicle and gas boiler policies were “intrinsically important to the UK’s ability to reach somewhere near its net zero commitments”.
Notice the usual stupidity, doing things ‘because climate’ that can, if the theory is correct, have no effect on it. So in the present case he really seems to think that the very small modifications Sunak has made to Net Zero will reall endanger the future security of the planet.
Whereas they will really have no measurable effect whatever. Neither will the UKs Net Zero goals, if they are miraculously achieved.
He’s what we call an head case.
His argument is unscientific and illogical.
He obviously hasn’t read the body of the latest IPCC report.
Who is he funded by? Lawyers involved in high court cases don’t come cheap.
The BBC employs him and he also does [high carbon footprint] tours…
“Chris has led trips to both Papua New Guinea and Alaska for Steppes Travel…
https://www.steppestravel.com/people/chris-packham/
But he, along with David Attenborough, is also a patron of Population Matters.
https://populationmatters.org/about-us/
And Attenborough stated their Malthusian thinking best:
“Humans are a plague on the Earth that need to be controlled by limiting population growth”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html
The IPCC report is window dressing.
Attenborough… please start the ‘control’ by offing yourself… thanks.
Plank.
I was going to suggest something stronger, but plank will do 😉
Scaffolding plank, they’re about twice as thick as other planks! 😀
Most politicians and activists are considerably thicker than a scaffolding plank.
Not thick enough… mine broke, along with an ankle and wrist… but, I kept my head.
Here’s a laugh for the EU rollout of BEVs. The EU could have 2 years worth of EV sales before the public chargers planned for them today could be up and running-
Analysis-EU’s electric dreams short-circuited by EV charging gridlock (msn.com)
Sell Tesla buy Toyota!
I hate to bet against Musk, but P/E Tesla is 77, zero dividend and the stock seems to be in a downtrend. Toyota P/E is 10 with a 2.3% dividend and long term trend is slowly up.
Trend is time range dependent, of course.
Different markets. Musk sells muscle cars for the self-styled virtuous, Toyota, well engineered vehicles for the rest of us.
In 2022 a report led by Mckinsey and company with 8 European wide associations concluded the the EU was currently installing EV chargers at 11% of the rate necessary for the mass roll out of EVs and that a total investment of €1000bn was needed to complete the transformation to electric road mobility.
https://www.acea.auto/publications/european-electric-vehicle-charging-infrastructure-masterplan/
Anybody else remember the history of the gas station, where oil companies built the infrastructure and gas stations on their dime, not the government’s.
correction: “not the taxpayers'”
Cost of living crisis update
“”MPs have charged taxpayers almost £300,000 for energy bills and other utilities at their second homes over the past year, a new analysis by The Independent has found.
Campaigners said the record-high figure shows that Britain’s politicians are “insulated” from the cost of living crisis, with a large portion of their energy costs covered by the public purse while millions struggle to pay bills.””
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-expenses-energy-bills-tories-labour-b2408030.html
I bet they don’t turn the thermostat down…
Off topic- sorry. In the Boston Globe today.
‘There’s no way to sugarcoat it.’ The state’s first climate report card is out, and the grades are mixed.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/01/science/mass-climate-report/
near the end:
More, more, more, more, more!
More, more, more, more, more to achieve less, less, less, less, less!
The main point is NOTHING is gained by giving up fossil fuels (with scrubbed emissions) The climate is almost un-affected.
There is no ‘almost’ about it – the climate is completely unaffected; human emmitted CO2 doesn’t seem to make even the most miniscule of difference.
Except that up to about 1,200 ppm, plants grow better. I suppose that is a climate related thing. This is not a criticism of what Richard wrote — just a reminder.
Love that cartoon!
Love India’s common sense!
India does have a few issues to deal with before I will applaud the country’s common sense.
Doesn’t every country?
In the case of the west we just blame everyone else, then proceed to bombing them.
And overthrowing their governments…
Mark COP28 down as a big success if Al aint happy-
The hosts of a big climate change summit don’t seem to think climate change is real (msn.com)
The Australian newspaper quotes a total of 104,000 flunkies attending for the kneesup and apart from the odd few skeptics keeping an eye on the excesses presumably they’ll be as peeved as Al.
The more peeved they all are, the happier I’ll be.
As a refresher for those attending the COP28, wind and solar do different things than crude oil.
Renewables only generate occasional electricity but cannot manufacture anything.
Crude oil is virtually never used to generate electricity but when manufactured into petrochemicals, is the basis for virtually all the products in our materialistic society that did not exist before the 1800’s.
We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for jets, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800’s.
Until a crude oil replacement is identified, the world cannot do without crude oil that is the basis of our materialistic “products” society.
Mr. Lonborg, head of a Swedish NGO that supports the climate change agenda, nonetheless reports that each year over 4 million people die because they don’t have access to fossil fuels – using parasite infested dung for heating and cooking – guessing you won’t hear much about that at COP
I think you mean this Danish fellow:
Bjørn Lomborg – Wikipedia
India leads the charge toward reason and sane decision-making. A country once mythologized in the West for mysticism and spiritualism during the psychedelic era is perhaps the most rational nation on the planet when it comes to designing policy that affects their own citizens.
What we need is a simple graph with just two lines on it. One line shows the CO2 concentration world wide. The other shows the money spent world wide to lower CO2 emissions. I’m not sure of the start dates but I think the Rio conference would be logical.
Hey, Vijay… how many of your fellow graduates have the common sense that you have somehow acquired?
When it comes to the climate/energy issue, India is not the only elephant in the room. In many ways China may be the biggest. They are not only dramatically increasing their fossil fuel use but profiting greatly off the sale of wind and solar equipment and materials to countries obsessed with eliminating it. Why would they want to change anything?