energy poverty grn pwr blk death
12/18 maybe belated, but just heard as talking pt from mainstream?
SEE WRIGHT DOE CWG BS ~ ENDANGERMENT LOMBORGIAN BS
STEVEN FUCKING MOORE
AEA IER ACSH
FRED SINGER
LEO
HEARTLAND
EXXON
HORNER
is this derivative of anti-DDT BS? int'l conf?
oops see other node (i may convert this to domestic)
see Driessen paul green death
see workwash
---
great bit of rhet jiu jitsu mirroring/ crypto?
CEI 6 26
Enemy of affordability: The radical climate agenda
- By: Daren Bakst
- 05/21/2026
For decades, some lawmakers and other proponents of radical climate policies have given little consideration to the adverse effects on consumers and the poor. Often,…
---
---
GRNWIRE
Climatewire
How Chris Wright recruited a team to upend climate science
By Benjamin Storrow | 08/11/2025 06:15 AM EDT
The Energy secretary handpicked climate contrarians to write a report that EPA is using to undermine U.S. regulation of greenhouse gases.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright addresses members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee during a May 21 hearing.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright addresses members of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee during a May 21 hearing. Mark Schiefelbein/AP
It started with a call from Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
In late March, a little over a month into his job leading the Department of Energy, Wright phoned a research scientist named Roy Spencer at his home. Wright wanted to know if Spencer, a former NASA scientist, would be interested in contributing to a climate study.
Spencer said yes.
Advertisement
Other scientists received similar calls from Wright. They included Judith Curry, a climatologist and professor emerita at the Georgia Institute of Technology; John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville; and Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for BP who also served as an undersecretary at the Energy Department during the Obama administration.
All the researchers had one thing in common: Each had spent years questioning the mainstream consensus around climate science. Most have worked with conservative activists and fossil fuel interests to cast doubt over the dangers of a warming planet.
“He had been following my research for many years,” Spencer said, recalling his conversation with Wright in a recent blog post.
The end result of Wright’s hand-picked team was a 141-page DOE report released last month that questioned the basic tenets of climate science, including the accuracy of climate models, the threats posed by sea-level rise and the links between extreme weather events and humanity’s use of fossil fuels.
The document could serve as a legal battering ram for President Donald Trump’s efforts to eliminate climate regulations; EPA cited the study 16 times when it released a proposal last month to rescind the legal designation underpinning climate regulations.
The study also represents a personal triumph for Wright, a former executive at fracking services company who has spent years arguing that the benefits of burning fossil fuels outweigh the costs. In an interview on CNN, Wright said the study was intended to promote “a real debate and discussion about climate change, and get away from the cancel culture.”
He told a Wall Street Journal podcast that “these claims of disaster and impending meltdowns, they’re just at odds with the actual facts.”
Such assertions have attracted fierce criticism from many climate scientists, with some going as far to label the study “fossil fuel propaganda” and accusing its authors of cherry-picking scientific evidence to suit their narrative.
John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist and a professor of atmospheric science at Texas A&M University, struck a less strident tone.
Advocates and opponents of climate policy are both prone to making exaggerated claims about the science. But climate science itself is sound while the dangers posed by a warming planet are real, he said.
“There’s a risk that has real consequences in lives and property if society as a whole ignores the changes that are taking place,” Nielsen-Gammon said.
A priority for Wright
Vice President JD Vance (left) listens to Energy Secretary Chris Wright speak during a March 28 visit to the U.S. military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland.
Vice President JD Vance (left) listens to Energy Secretary Chris Wright speak during a March 28 visit to the U.S. military’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland. | Pool photo by Jim Watson
Just how much Wright personally invested in DOE’s study has become clear in his media appearances over the last week and in public comments by the report’s authors.
“Only one of the executive-level appointees in the Administration had the background knowledge and interest to invest in making this science report happen: Energy Secretary Chris Wright,” Spencer wrote on his blog.
In an email, Curry said she spoke with Wright three times, once when he invited her to participate, once regarding the White House vetting process and a third time with the wider group.
“He invited me because he regarded me as objective, and willing to listen to and consider a broad range of perspectives,” she wrote.
Wright also tapped Travis Fisher, an energy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, to coordinate the study.
“The secretary’s plan was simple,” Fisher wrote in a blog post on Cato’s website. “We would reorient the debate about climate science and climate policy by confronting the gatekeepers head-on.”
Fisher and Spencer did not respond to requests for comment.
DOE’s study comes at a time when the Trump administration has launched an attack on climate science, pulling down the National Climate Assessment from its government webpage, proposing deep cuts in scientific research and exploring a plan to end the mission of a pair of satellite’s used to measure carbon dioxide levels around the world.
DOE did not respond to a request to interview Wright or a list of written questions. But Wright told the Wall Street Journal he was seeking “honest, true scientists” who were “really driven by the data” to lead the study. In a forward to the study, Wright wrote that he had sought “a diverse team of independent experts” to review climate science.
“I exerted no control over their conclusions,” he wrote.
Yet all the researchers he selected were well known as outliers in the field of climate science with a reputation for questioning the dangers of a warming planet.
In 2017, when then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed the idea of pitting climate contrarians against their mainstream counterparts in a “red team, blue team” exercise, the conservative Heartland Institute sent EPA a list of skeptics who could fill out the red team.
Four of the DOE study’s authors — Christy, Curry, Koonin and Spencer — were on it. The work of the fifth DOE researcher, the Canadian environmental economist Ross McKitrick, is cited on that list, but his name wasn’t put forth by Heartland for a red team position.
The decision to select a handful of scientists known for their skepticism of climate science fit a pattern for Wright, who over the years has pressed the idea that fossil fuels are key to human prosperity and that efforts to curtail their use is harmful.
Liberty Energy, the fracking services company Wright ran until becoming Energy secretary, released a report last year that argued climate policy threatened to slow human progress unleashed by fossil fuels. It listed 10 key takeaways.
No. 9 read, “Climate change is a global challenge but is far from the world’s greatest threat to human life.”
No. 10 said, “Zero Energy Poverty by 2050 is a superior goal compared to Net Zero 2050.”
The forward Wright penned to DOE’s study hits on those same points.
“Climate change is real, and it deserves attention. But it is not the greatest threat facing humanity,” it reads. “That distinction belongs to global energy poverty.”
Critics: It’s about advancing an agenda
(From left) Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pose for a photo with the Trans-Alaska pipeline in the background after a June 2 news conference in Alaska.
(From left) Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Wright and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin pose for a photo with the Trans-Alaska pipeline in the background after a June 2 news conference in Alaska. | Jenny Kane/AP
Scott Denning, a climate scientist who recently retired from Colorado State University and who debated Wright on a Denver television show in 2015, said he recognized many of Wright’s talking points.
It is telling that the secretary had personally phoned the report’s authors and asked them to conduct a study, he said.
“He has this shtick about how fossil fuels have made the world much better,” said Denning, who then paraphrased what he sees as Wright’s viewpoint: “Everything uses fossil fuels. If we don’t have fossil fuels, we’re going back to pre-modern times.”
But Denning said, “I think that’s just such a false choice.”
Nielsen-Gammon said there is “sensitivity” within the community of climate scientists about publishing results that might be viewed negatively.
But he said that feeling is counteracted by the sheer amount of scrutiny climate science receives and the “extraordinary process” used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “where international communities of scientists get together regularly and hash through the evidence and figure out what’s well supported and what isn’t.”
Nielsen-Gammon said he disagreed with the DOE report’s finding that extreme rainfall events were not increasing in frequency and intensity — his area of expertise — noting that the report did not cite a number of studies on the subject, including one he published last year.
Others have been even more strident in their criticism.
In a recent Substack post, the climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the DOE study incorrectly cited his 2019 paper on the performance of climate models. That study compared climate models’ past emissions projections to observed emissions. DOE used it to bolster a claim that climate models had tended to overestimate emissions.
The only problem: the paper concluded just the opposite, Hausfather wrote.
“They scoured my paper on the performance of climate models to find the one figure (deep in the supplementary materials) to reinforce the point they were trying to make, and never actually referred to the broader conclusion of the paper that old models had by-and-large performed quite well,” he said.
The study’s authors largely have dismissed such criticisms. In an interview on the Heartland Institute’s ”The Climate Realism Show,” Curry called such critiques ”petty.”
“If we’re going to reference their paper, they would have liked us to make a different point,” she said, referring specifically to Hausfather. “Well, no, that’s not the point we’re making, but we do think that your graph is particularly informative, and we’re going to use that as part of our narrative.”
In her email, Curry called the cherry-picking claim “rather bizarre.”
“All of the issues that we supposedly ‘cherry picked’ were somehow not included in previous assessment reports (which were also arguably cherry picked),” she wrote.
Several prominent climate researchers argue the goal of DOE’s climate study is not to advance a scientific debate. Rather, it’s about advancing the Trump administration’s political agenda.
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, wrote on X that the study “should be thought of as a law brief from attorneys defending their client, carbon dioxide.”
The study figures prominently in EPA’s recent proposal to revoke the endangerment finding, the legal designation obligating the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
DOE sent the study to EPA on May 27, after which it was reviewed by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin as part of his deliberations over whether to repeal the endangerment finding, according to a copy of the proposal posted in the Federal Register.
EPA’s proposal cites DOE’s study 16 times, according to a review by POLITICO’s E&E News, using its conclusion to bolster the agency’s case that the endangerment finding should be repealed.
They include claims that “recent data and analyses suggest that aggregate sea level rise has been minimal,” that climate models “may be based on inaccurate assumptions, and that attributing anthropogenic emissions to extreme weather events “is more difficult than previously believed and demand additional analysis.”
In the Heartland interview, Curry said the DOE researchers were aware EPA was interested in their study. She said the report was completed in May, but its publication was delayed to coincide with the release of EPA’s proposal.
But she added: “We were not, you know, instructed in any way to deal with endangerment finding related issues. We figured these were on the table, but we didn’t focus on that at all.”
This story also appears in Energywire.
---}:
Marc Morano
Weekly update ⋅ September 26, 2025
Trump's climate speech should be 'EPIC': Marc Morano - YouTube
YouTube
ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses President Donald Trump's upcoming speech on fossil fuels and more on 'The Bottom Line.
Trump makes global push for fossil fuels | Fox Business Video
Fox Business
ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses President Donald Trump's upcoming speech on fossil fuels and more on 'The Bottom Line.'
omfg
ClimateDepot.com executive editor Marc Morano discusses President Donald Trump's upcoming speech on fossil fuels and more on 'The Bottom Line.'
fox biz 6 min
Kerry
ghoul climate colonialiam told Africa 3 yrs ago threat ff pjts will not get funded or make profit; stay in dark poverty yto keep ff in gnd bc not good for climate; world cannot have AC; yellin straw hut praise for climate commitment, lectuered, trump sp UN will be epic, let them have it tomorrow; black hole of finance, sucking anti-human; 1 in 5 carbon offsets 1/5 land owned by wealth euro; trump try to do rt thing, allow poor to catch up; renewable energy racists; let us use the word they will use; easier to change gender than energy; make buraucrats wealthy in dev world; leftwing lunaverse; ca nerwsom sued big oil refinery shit dn chevron leave state; only buy EV overturne EPA waiver rescinded; impoverish entire state; after 25 yrs pounding FF corps; gavin run for prez; delsy cap, minor restrictions; fraud imprting refined oil from Iraq brazil low emission GND fantasies; ...? pll of ca voted for this; hypocrisy newsome went to china byb ron popeil; china biggest carbon emitter.
---
---
aha yikes: the trump gift that keeps giving; morano is using pent-up up rage to gin up anti-commie far of grn action on climate:
aha 2: fox tucker all about compassion/empathy?! eg w steve king rehab?
revive energy pov is LOMBORGIAN misdirection: famine cause by putin war, floods, droughts, other wars that they ignore or cheer for
[https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/fox-news-platforms-climate-denial-and-great-reset-conspiracy-theory-during-cop27](https://webbrain.com/brainpage/brain/=https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/fox-news-platforms-climate-denial-and-great-reset-conspiracy-theory-during-cop27ted%20macdDuring%20the%20final%20weekend%20of%20the%202022%20United%20Nations%20Climate%20Change%20Conference,%20known%20as%20COP27,%20two%20Fox%20News%20programs%20invited%20longtime%20climate%20denier%20Marc%20Morano%20to%20discuss%20the%20conference%20and%20link%20it%20to%20a%20conspiracy%20theory%20about%20the%20Great%20Reset.As%20Media%20Matters%20wrote%20last%20week,%20adherents%20to%20the%20Great%20Reset%20conspiracy%20theory%20absurdly%20believe%20that%20global%20elites%20are%20using%20climate%20change%20policies%20in%20order%20to%20crush%20individual%20freedoms%20and%20install%20a%20global%20dictatorial%20government.%20Morano%20is%20a%20key%20driver%20of%20the%20climate%20denial%20components%20of%20this%20conspiracy%20theory.%20We%20also%20noted%20that%20given%20the%20high-profile%20nature%20of%20COP27%20and%20the%20presence%20of%20numerous%20world%20leaders%20there,%20this%20conspiracy%20theory%20would%20proliferate%20within%20right-wing%20discussions%20of%20the%20conference.And%20now,%20the%20most-watched%20cable%20news%20network%20in%20the%20U.S.%20has%20prominently%20featured%20the%20false%20claims%20in%20its%20discussions%20around%20COP27.On%20the%20November%2012%20edition%20of%20Unfiltered%20with%20Dan%20Bongino,%20Morano%20stated%20that%20world%20leaders%20want%20to%20%E2%80%9Cuse%20the%20COVID%20template%20to%20fight%20climate,%20i.e.%20authoritarianism,%20you%20don%E2%80%99t%20have%20a%20say,%20democracy%20goes%20to%20die.%E2%80%9D%20He%20also%20falsely%20downplayed%20the%20health%20threats%20associated%20with%20climate%20change,%20wrongly%20dismissed%20the%20need%20for%20climate%20action%20as%20too%20expensive,%20and%20directly%20referred%20to%20COP27%20as%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20Great%20Reset%20summit.%E2%80%9D%20Host%20Dan%20Bongino%20also%20brought%20up%20a%20key%20tenet%20of%20the%20Great%20Reset%20conspiracy%20theory,%20which%20is%20that%20climate%20change%20is%20all%20about%20control.%20He%20stated%20that%20the%20conference%20is%20%E2%80%9Ca%20totalitarian%20way%20to%20control%20things.%20This%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20climate%20science.%22[vid]11/12MORANO%20%28FOUNDER,%20CLIMATEDEPOT.COM%29:%20I'm%20here%20in%20Sharm%20El-Sheikh,%20Egypt,%20at%20this%20conference.%20And%20not%20only%20is%20the%20World%20Economic%20Forum%20here,%20the%20home%20of%20the%20Great%20Reset%20%E2%80%94%20they%20were%20on%20the%20panel%20with%20John%20Kerry%20when%20he%20went%20to%20use%20the%20COVID%20template%20to%20fight%20climate,%20i.e.%20authoritarianism,%20you%20don%E2%80%99t%20have%20a%20say,%20democracy%20goes%20to%20die%20when%20they%20talk%20like%20that.%20But%20the%20World%20Health%20Organization%20was%20also%20here%20to%20morph%20COVID%20and%20climate%20together%20by%20declaring%20climate%20a%20massive%20public%20health%20threat.%20Despite%20the%20fact,%20Dan,%20that%20climate-related%20deaths%20have%20dropped%2099%%20in%20the%20last%20hundred%20years%20and%20they%E2%80%99ve%20declined%20due%20to%20wealth%20creation,%20and%20development,%20infrastructure,%20and%20fossil%20fuels.%20So,%20this%20is%20very%20scary.%20This%20is%20John%20Kerry.%20Al%20Gore%20also%20is%20here.%20Along%20with%20John%20Kerry%20he's%20pushing%20his%20climate%20trace%20app%20that%E2%80%99s%20going%20to%20be%20tracing%20all%20individual%20CO2%20contributors%20globally.%20Remember,%20humans%20inhale%20oxygen;%20we%20exhale%20CO2.%20So%20they%E2%80%99re%20modeling%20a%20track%20and%20trace%20app%20for%20CO2%20to%20go%20after%20businesses%20and%20agriculture.%20This%20is%20the%20Great%20Reset%20summit%20here%20in%20Sharm%20El-Sheikh,%20Egypt.DAN%20BONGINO%20%28FOX%20HOST%29:%20Marc,%20and%20you%E2%80%99ve%20been%20sounding%20the%20alarm%20about%20this%20forever.%20This%20is%20all%20about%20control.%20This%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20science.%20When%20the%20vax%20started%20to%20lose%20effectiveness%20against%20transmission,%20they%20almost%20doubled%20down%20on%20mandates.%20Their%20push%20for%20digital%20ID,%20digital%20currencies,%20you%20know,%20CO2%20monitors%20%E2%80%94%20this%20is%20just%20a%20totalitarian%20way%20to%20control%20people.%20This%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20climate%20science.%20MORANO:%20It%20has%20nothing%20to%20do.%20Here%E2%80%99s%20how%20absurd%20it%20is.%20Goldman%20Sachs%20economist%20two%20weeks%20ago%20said%20on%20CNBC%20that%20we%E2%80%99ve%20spent%20almost%20$4%20trillion%20to%20reduce%20fossil%20fuels%201%.%20And%20so,%20and%20you%E2%80%99d%20would%20think%20they%E2%80%99d%20look%20at%20that%20and%20say%20solar%20and%20wind%20are%20failing,%20you%20cannot%20replace%20fossil%20fuels%20at%20any%20scale%20they%E2%80%99re%20talking.%20Al%20Gore%20comes%20this%20week%20along%20with%20John%20Kerry%20and%20wants%20private%20industry%20to%20spent%20$4%20trillion%20per%20year%20to%20fight%20climate%20change.%20That%E2%80%99s%20how%20insane%20this%20is.%20It's%20almost%20like%20the%20old,%20you%20know,%20socialism%20never%20failed,%20it%20wasn't%20done%20correctly%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union,%20it%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20done%20correctly%20in%20Venezuela,%20it%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20done%20correctly%20in%20Eastern%20Europe,%20it%20wasn%E2%80%99t%20done%20correctly%20in%20Cuba.%20They%20are%20now%20literally%20looking%20at%20this%20and%20saying%20all%20the%20failure%20we%20see%20everywhere%20is%20more%20of%20a%20reason%20to%20double%20down.%20And%20this%20is%20what%E2%80%99s%20scary,%20Dan:%20You%20have%20every%20major%20corporation%20listed%20as%20quote%20%E2%80%9Cmain%20partners%E2%80%9D%20at%20this%20U.N.%20climate%20Great%20Reset%20summit%20including%20IBM,%20Google,%20Coca-Cola,%20Bank%20of%20America.The%20next%20morning,%20on%20Fox%20&%20Friends%20Sunday,%20Morano%20again%20fearmongered%20about%20the%20Great%20Reset%20at%20COP27.%20In%20addition%20to%20claiming%20that%20climate%20change%20is%20all%20about%20control,%20he%20also%20invoked%20the%20idea%20of%20lockdowns%20and%20the%20idea%20that%20global%20elites%20want%20to%20disrupt%20agriculture%20%E2%80%94%20also%20key%20tenets%20of%20the%20Great%20Reset%20conspiracy%20theory.%20He%20closed%20the%20interview%20by%20insinuating,%20again,%20that%20COP27%20is%20all%20about%20the%20Great%20Reset,%20and%20that%20these%20global%20elites%20want%20to%20increase%20their%20power%20at%20the%20expense%20of%20human%20liberties.[vid]%20CAMPOS-DUFFY%20%28FOX%20HOST%29:%20President%20Joe%20Biden%20pledging%20$150%20million%20to%20advance%20Africa's%20resilience%20to%20climate%20change.%20This%20despite%20146%20million%20people%20across%20the%20country%20going%20hungry.%20ClimateDepot.com%20publisher,%20and%20author%20of%20The%20Great%20Reset:%20Global%20Elites%20and%20The%20Permanent%20Lockdown,%20Marc%20Morano%20joins%20us%20now.%20Marc,%20always%20great%20to%20have%20you%20on%20the%20show.%20So%2034%20million%20Africans%20are%20actually%20in%20danger%20of%20famine%20right%20now.%20So,%20why%20are%20they%20offering%20them%20money%20for%20climate%20policies%20and%20initiatives%20and%20not%20food?%20MARC%20MORANO%20%28FOUNDER,%20CLIMATEDEPOT.COM%29:%20This%20is%20an%20incredible%20situation.%20They%20have%20it%20completely%20backwards.%20Instead%20of%20looking%20at%20all%20the%20problems%20in%20the%20world,%20and%20saying%20we%20need%20more%20food%20production,%20we%20need%20high-yield%20agriculture,%20they%20look%20at%20it%20and%20say%20we%20need%20to%20stop%20climate%20change.%20And%20this%20whole%20agenda,%20they%20have%20harmed%20Africa,%20first%20of%20all%20through%20COVID%20policy%20%E2%80%94%20CAMPOS-DUFFY:%20Yes.%20MORANO:%20%E2%80%94%20and%20this%20is%20chiefly%20occurring%20through%20COVID%20lockdowns,%20which,%20by%20the%20way,%20the%20World%20Health%20Organization%20was%20there,%20the%20World%20Economic%20Forum%20was%20at%20this%20U.N.%20Climate%20summit%20where%20Biden%20was.%20And%20they%27re%20pushing%20more%20response%20to%20climate%20as%20the%20same%20template%20as%20COVID,%20which%20means%20essentially%20bypassing%20democracy.%20But%20what%20the%20Biden%20administration%E2%80%99s%20done,%20they%E2%80%99re%20allowing%20this%20to%20happen%20in%20Africa.%20We%27ve%20seen%20it%20in%20the%20Netherlands.%20They%27re%20collapsing%20modern%20high-yield%20agriculture.%20They%E2%80%99re%20doing%20it%20in%20Australia,%20in%20Canada.%20They%E2%80%99re%20making%20food%20more%20expensive,%20creating%20shortages.%20They%E2%80%99re%20doing%20the%20same%20thing%20in%20transportation%20and%20doing%20the%20same%20thing%20in%20energy,%20all%20in%20the%20name%20of%20climate%20change.%20%E2%80%A6CAMPOS-DUFFY:%20Marc,%20really%20quickly,%20yes%20or%20no.%20Is%20this%20summit,%20and%20all%20of%20the%20initiatives%20that%20they%27re%20pushing,%20even%20this%20tracking%20app%20%E2%80%94%20is%20it%20about%20the%20environment,%20or%20is%20it%20about%20the%20Great%20Reset%20and%20population%20control?%20MORANO:%20This%20is%20all%20about%20increasing%20their%20power,%20imposing%20their%20vision,%20and%20their%20vision%20is%20population%20control,%20economic%20control,%20and%20basically%20civil%20liberties%20control%20of%20every%20human%20on%20the%20earth.%20That%20is%20really%20what%20this%20conference%20is%20about.%20That%20is%20what%20the%20United%20Nations%20teaming%20up%20with%20the%20World%20Economic%20Forum%20is%20all%20about.Later%20in%20the%20program,%20host%20Rachel%20Campos-Duffy%20again%20brought%20up%20the%20Great%20Reset.%20After%20a%20discussion%20about%20Biden%20meeting%20Chinese%20President%20Xi%20Jinping,%20Campos-Duffy%20stated%20that%20Morano%20%E2%80%9Cwrote%20a%20book%20about%20climate%20change%20and%20how%20it%20is%20part%20of%20the%20Great%20Reset.%20It%20is%20really%20fantastic,%20being%20very%20clear%20what%20this%20is%20about.%20Climate%20change%20is%20not%20about%20the%20climate.%20He%20actually%20proves%20it%20is%20not%20really%20affecting%20the%20climate%20and%20certainly%20not%20worth%20the%20trillions%20of%20investment%20that%20the%20world%20and%20especially%20America%20have%20made%20in%20that.%20But%20he%20says%20it%E2%80%99s%20about%20the%20Great%20Reset,%20it%E2%80%99s%20about%20control,%20and%20it%E2%80%99s%20ultimately%20about%20population%20control.%E2%80%9D=)
ted macd no lnx
During the final weekend of the 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP27, two Fox News programs invited longtime climate denier Marc Morano to discuss the conference and link it to a conspiracy theory about the Great Reset.
As Media Matters wrote last week, adherents to the Great Reset conspiracy theory absurdly believe that global elites are using climate change policies in order to crush individual freedoms and install a global dictatorial government. Morano is a key driver of the climate denial components of this conspiracy theory. We also noted that given the high-profile nature of COP27 and the presence of numerous world leaders there, this conspiracy theory would proliferate within right-wing discussions of the conference.
And now, the most-watched cable news network in the U.S. has prominently featured the false claims in its discussions around COP27.
On the November 12 edition of Unfiltered with Dan Bongino, Morano stated that world leaders want to “use the COVID template to fight climate, i.e. authoritarianism, you don’t have a say, democracy goes to die.” He also falsely downplayed the health threats associated with climate change, wrongly dismissed the need for climate action as too expensive, and directly referred to COP27 as “the Great Reset summit.”
Host Dan Bongino also brought up a key tenet of the Great Reset conspiracy theory, which is that climate change is all about control. He stated that the conference is “a totalitarian way to control things. This has nothing to do with climate science."
[vid]11/12
MORANO (FOUNDER, CLIMATEDEPOT.COM): I'm here in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, at this conference. And not only is the World Economic Forum here, the home of the Great Reset — they were on the panel with John Kerry when he went to use the COVID template to fight climate, i.e. authoritarianism, you don’t have a say, democracy goes to die when they talk like that. But the World Health Organization was also here to morph COVID and climate together by declaring climate a massive public health threat. Despite the fact, Dan, that climate-related deaths have dropped 99% in the last hundred years and they’ve declined due to wealth creation, and development, infrastructure, and fossil fuels. So, this is very scary. This is John Kerry. Al Gore also is here. Along with John Kerry he's pushing his climate trace app that’s going to be tracing all individual CO2 contributors globally. Remember, humans inhale oxygen; we exhale CO2. So they’re modeling a track and trace app for CO2 to go after businesses and agriculture. This is the Great Reset summit here in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
DAN BONGINO (FOX HOST): Marc, and you’ve been sounding the alarm about this forever. This is all about control. This has nothing to do with science. When the vax started to lose effectiveness against transmission, they almost doubled down on mandates. Their push for digital ID, digital currencies, you know, CO2 monitors — this is just a totalitarian way to control people. This has nothing to do with climate science.
MORANO: It has nothing to do. Here’s how absurd it is. Goldman Sachs economist two weeks ago said on CNBC that we’ve spent almost $4 trillion to reduce fossil fuels 1%. And so, and you’d would think they’d look at that and say solar and wind are failing, you cannot replace fossil fuels at any scale they’re talking. Al Gore comes this week along with John Kerry and wants private industry to spent $4 trillion per year to fight climate change.
That’s how insane this is. It's almost like the old, you know, socialism never failed, it wasn't done correctly in the Soviet Union, it wasn’t done correctly in Venezuela, it wasn’t done correctly in Eastern Europe, it wasn’t done correctly in Cuba. They are now literally looking at this and saying all the failure we see everywhere is more of a reason to double down. And this is what’s scary, Dan: You have every major corporation listed as quote “main partners” at this U.N. climate Great Reset summit including IBM, Google, Coca-Cola, Bank of America.
The next morning, on Fox & Friends Sunday, Morano again fearmongered about the Great Reset at COP27. In addition to claiming that climate change is all about control, he also invoked the idea of lockdowns and the idea that global elites want to disrupt agriculture — also key tenets of the Great Reset conspiracy theory. He closed the interview by insinuating, again, that COP27 is all about the Great Reset, and that these global elites want to increase their power at the expense of human liberties.
[vid]
CAMPOS-DUFFY (FOX HOST): President Joe Biden pledging $150 million to advance Africa's resilience to climate change. This despite 146 million people across the country going hungry. ClimateDepot.com publisher, and author of The Great Reset: Global Elites and The Permanent Lockdown, Marc Morano joins us now. Marc, always great to have you on the show. So 34 million Africans are actually in danger of famine right now. So, why are they offering them money for climate policies and initiatives and not food?
MARC MORANO (FOUNDER, CLIMATEDEPOT.COM): This is an incredible situation. They have it completely backwards. Instead of looking at all the problems in the world, and saying we need more food production, we need high-yield agriculture, they look at it and say we need to stop climate change. And this whole agenda, they have harmed Africa, first of all through COVID policy —
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yes.
MORANO: — and this is chiefly occurring through COVID lockdowns, which, by the way, the World Health Organization was there, the World Economic Forum was at this U.N. Climate summit where Biden was. And they're pushing more response to climate as the same template as COVID, which means essentially bypassing democracy. But what the Biden administration’s done, they’re allowing this to happen in Africa. We've seen it in the Netherlands. They're collapsing modern high-yield agriculture.They’re doing it in Australia, in Canada. They’re making food more expensive, creating shortages. They’re doing the same thing in transportation and doing the same thing in energy, all in the name of climate change.
…
CAMPOS-DUFFY: Marc, really quickly, yes or no. Is this summit, and all of the initiatives that they're pushing, even thistracking app — is it about the environment, or is it about the Great Reset and population control?
MORANO: This is all about increasing their power, imposing their vision, and their vision is population control, economic control, and basically civil liberties control of every human on the earth. That is really what this conference is about. That is what the United Nations teaming up with the World Economic Forum is all about.
Later in the program, host Rachel Campos-Duffy again brought up the Great Reset. After a discussion about Biden meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping, Campos-Duffy stated that Morano “wrote a book about climate change and how it is part of the Great Reset. It is really fantastic, being very clear what this is about. Climate change is not about the climate. He actually proves it is not really affecting the climate and certainly not worth the trillions of investment that the world and especially America have made in that. But he says it’s about the Great Reset, it’s about control, and it’s ultimately about population control.”
---
---
documentaries
https://www.desmog.com/2015/11/19/evangelical-christian-zeal-behind-marc-morano-s-climate-denial-documentary-climate-hustle/
The Evangelical Christian Climate Deniers Behind Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary
By Graham Readfearn on Nov 19, 2015
One unambiguous video title states that “Climate Policies kill. People will die”, while others scream how moves to cut greenhouse gas emissions “devalues human life” and “kills thousands” in Britain.
All this extremist language comes from the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a US-based Christian evangelical group that rejects climate science and is preparing to release a new documentary in the coming weeks.
Cornwall has been posting preview clips under the banner “Greener on the other Side: Climate Alarmism – Fact, Not Fear”on its YouTube page.
The views in the clips are extreme but represent a grab bag of climate science denialist talking points, ignoring the mountains of evidence gathered from multiple sources over many decades of the impacts of loading the atmosphere and the oceans with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.
The clips cut across energy policy and climate science and claim, amongst other things, there is no evidence to support cuts to the use of fossil fuels which are beneficial to the planet.
In one segment, the alliance’s supposed climate experts promote creationism. “There has to be a designer – a creator behind this,” says David Legates.
The Cornwall Alliance is preparing to release the full DVD at the end of November under the title “Where the Grass is Greener”, only days before another climate science denial documentary, Climate Hustle, gets its premiere in Paris.
The two films also share a number of experts, including statistician William Briggs, climate denial activist Tom Harris, Australian “sceptic” Bob Carter, British peer Lord Christopher Monckton and blogger Anthony Watts.
But the similarities between Greener on the Other Side and Climate Hustle do not stop there, because both films share the same director in Chris Rogers and were produced by his company – CDR Communications.
Rogers’ CDR Communications was also behind another Cornwall Alliance extremist video effort in 2010 — Resisting the Green Dragon — that claimed environmentalism was a “false religion” and that it was a cover story for a “global government” power grab.
Rogers is also the chairman of The James Partnership, the umbrella arm that includes the Cornwall Alliance as one of its projects and pays the salary ofCalvin Beisner, Cornwall’s founder and spokesperson.
While Cornwall Alliance will be unlikely to gain traction for its DVD outside of evangelical Christian circles, Marc Morano has much greater ambitions for Climate Hustle.
Climate science denialist Morano is the bombastic communications director for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
As DeSmog reported, after a “red carpet premier” of the film that Morano modestly claims will “rock the climate debate”, CFACT wants a US cinema release for the documentary, followed by DVD sales andthen distribution in schools and colleges.
In the most recent trailer for Climate Hustle, CDR Communications staffer Anna Milograno is credited as the editor, with Rogers as the producer and director.
In two earlier trailers, CDR Communications staffers Ian Jelliffe and Jay Kim were also credited, alongside “director of photography Joseph Rossell”.
Rossell is a research analyst at the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) who has been writing stories attacking climate science on his IRD blog Juicy Ecumenism and also on the NewsBusters website. NewsBusters is a project of the Media Research Center (MRC), which describes itself as “America’s leading media watchdog in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.”
Morano has previously credited MRC as helping to produce Climate Hustle by providing access to archive news footage. Morano once worked as a journalist at Cybercast News Service, another MRC project.
Both MRC and CFACT have previously accepted grants from oil company ExxonMobil, which is currently under investigation by the New York attorney general for allegedly lying about the risks of climate change to the public and investors.
In the latest Cornwall Alliance film, Paul Driessen, CFACT‘s senior policy advisor, says: “I’m often accused of taking fossil fuel money – I’m still waiting for the check from ExxonMobil”.
Understanding the links between Morano, Climate Hustle and evangelical religion reveals an irony. Morano and other climate science deniers will frequently attempt to disparage climate science by comparing it to a kind of religion, implying that they are blinded by faith.
Yet the very people Morano employed to produce his new documentary are fundamentalist Christians with a warped view on science. The one being blinded by faith, it seems, is Morano himself.
---
---
Energy Poverty
The Cornwall Alliance often argues that conventional energy sources are needed to fight against poverty in the developing world. For example, this is the perspective of the Cornwall Alliance’sResearch Associate for Developing Countries,who describes coal as a “clean: energy source:
“In light of the astronomical changes to energy policies that are being proposed, and with regard to the Christian voice that needs to be heard within policymaking bodies,the most loving deed we Christians can do is to advocate for the environmentally safe policies that will address the livelihood of the poor and the marginalized of the world, including those in the developed West.
As a Christian student of environmental science, I believe clean conventional energy sources (such as coal and nuclear energy) are the lifeline of our civilization. Do coal-based energy sources pose an imminent threat to the globe by increasing temperature levels? Real-world observations[satellite bs?] instead of computer climate models, suggest that the answer is no.” (Emphasis added). [25]
Regarding theParis climate summit in 2015,Calvin Beisner made the following comments:
“The ‘Commitments’ made in the Paris agreement are voluntary and unenforceable,” Beisner said,”“which means most nations will not comply. EU nations said They would make binding Commitments only if all major emitters did-and They Did not. So the EU‘s ‘Commitments’ lose all substance.”
“‘That’s perfectly understandable. Risks from poverty are far greater than from climate change, so whatever slows economic growth means greater harm than global warming.” [31]
[[==
CDR rogers
ever released? diff name?
several old white guys no ID tim ball prof climatology, singer and michael id as prof of env sci uva; l stewart; kinda stark visual contrast to lil blk kids getting polio vaccine?!]
co2 effect is insult to gawd
“Convicted: How Climate Alarmism Harms the World’s Poor,” The Heritage Foundation, May 17, 2017. Archived May 16, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/Fr8lN]]
---
guk
https://yyy.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/09/big-oil-delay-tactics-new-climate-science-denial
Big oil’s ‘wokewashing’ is the new climate science denialism
‘Discourses of delay’ by the fossil fuel companies.
Academic researchers say the fossil fuel industry has a new tool to delay efforts to curb emissions – a social justice strategy
Amy Westervelt
@amywestervelt
Thu 9 Sep 2021
ExxonMobil has been touting its commitment to “reducing carbon emissions with innovative energy solutions”. Chevron would like to remind you it is keeping the lights on during this dark time. BP is going#NetZero, but is also very proud of the “digital innovations” on its new, enormous oil drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Meanwhile Shell insists it really supports women in traditionally male-dominated jobs.
A casual social media user might get the impression the fossil fuel industry views itself as a social justice warrior, fighting on behalf of the poor, the marginalized, and women – at least based on its marketing material in recent years.
These campaigns fall into what a handful of sociologists and economists call “discourses of delay”. While oil and gas companies have a long track record of denying climate change, even after their own scientists repeatedly warned of the harm caused by burning fossil fuels, now the industry’s messaging is far more subtle and in many ways more effective than outright climate science denial.
By downplaying the urgency of the climate crisis, the industry has new tools to delay efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. And worse yet: even industry critics haven’t fully caught up to this new approach.
“If you just focus on climate denial, then all of this other stuff is missed,” explains Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist and visiting professor at Brown University.
Brulle, who published a peer-reviewed study in 2019 that analyzed major oil corporations’ advertising spending over a 30-year period, says the “lion’s share” of ad dollars were directed not toward denial, or even toward the industry’s products, but toward pro-fossil fuel propaganda – campaigns that remind people over and over again about all the great things oil companies do, how dependent we are on fossil fuels, and how integral the industry is to society. //API ROWE]
“They’re spending probably five or 10 times more on all this corporate promotion advertising,” he says. “And yet the climate movement seems to only focus on the science denial part.”
ExxonMobil has used Twitter campaigns to emphasize progress on addressing climate change while also downplaying the urgency of the crisis. Source: Twitter
Oil companies stopped pushing overt climate denial more than a decade ago. And while conspiracy theories claiming climate change is a hoax may surface occasionally, they are no longer an effective strategy.
Instead, the fossil fuel industry, utilities and the various trade groups, politicians and think tanks that carry water for both, have pivoted to messages that acknowledge the problem, but downplay its severity and the urgency for solutions. Instead companies are overstating the industry’s progress toward addressing climate change.
In a paper published in the journal Global Sustainability last July, economist William Lamb and nearly a dozen co-authors catalogued the most common messaging from those who would prefer to see inaction on climate for as long as possible. According to Lamb’s team, the industry’s “discourses of delay” fall into four buckets: redirect responsibility (consumers are also to blame for fossil fuel emissions), push non-transformative solutions (disruptive change is not necessary), emphasize the downside of action (change will be disruptive), and surrender (it’s not possible to mitigate climate change).
“This was a paper that was born on Twitter, funnily enough,” Lamb says. Lamb and collaborators Giulio Mattoli and Julia Steinberger began compiling the fossil fuel messaging they saw repeatedly on social media. Then they asked other academics from various fields to add what they were seeing too, and patterns soon emerged.
Lamb says they explicitly left denial out of the equation. “What we tried to do was really examine delay as something distinct,” he says. “From our view, delay had not received the kind of attention it deserves.”
Of all the messaging geared toward delaying action on climate, or assurances that the fossil fuel industry has a grip on possible solutions, Lamb and other authors agreed that one theme was far more prevalent than the rest: “the social justice argument.”
This strategy generally takes one of two forms: either warnings that a transition away from fossil fuels will adversely impact poor and marginalized communities, or claims that oil and gas companies are aligned with those communities. Researchers call this practice “wokewashing”.
Twitter ads, like this video by ExxonMobil, reflect popular messaging around social justice, implying that the company is aligned with diverse communities. Researchers call this practice ‘wokewashing’.]Composite: Twitter]
An email Chevron’s PR firm CRC Advisorssent to journalists last year is a perfect example. It urged journalists to look at how green groups were “claiming solidarity” with Black Lives Matter while “backing policies which would hurt minority communities”. Chevron later denied that it had anything to do with this email, although it regularly hires CRC and the bottom of the email in question read: “If you would rather not receive future communications from Chevron, let us know by clicking here.”
Another common industry talking point argues a transition away from fossil fuels will be unavoidably bad for impoverished communities. The argument is based on the assumption that these communities value fossil fuel energy more than concerns about all of its attendant problems (air and water pollution, in addition to climate change), and that there is no way to provide poor communities or countries with affordable renewable energy.
Chevron also claimed solidarity with Black Lives Matter last year, although it is also responsible for polluting the Black-majority city it’s headquartered in: Richmond, California,where Chevron also pays for a larger-than-average police force. Meanwhile the American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil’s largest trade group and lobbyist, funds diversity in stem programs, but it also declines to acknowledge the disproportionate impacts on communities of color.
Discourses of delay don’t just show up in advertising and marketing campaigns, but in policy conversations too.
“We’ve gone through thousands of pieces of testimony on climate and clean energy bills at the state level, and all of the industry arguments against this sort of legislation included these messages,” says J Timmons Roberts, professor of environment and sociology at Brown University, and a co-author on the “discourses of delay” paper.
People need a sort of field guide to these arguments so they’re not just duped.
In a recently published study focused on delay tactics in Massachusetts, for example, Roberts and his co-authors catalogued how fossil fuel interest groups and utility companies in particular used discourses of delay to try to defeat clean energy legislation. Another recent study found similar campaigns against clean energy and climate bills in Connecticut. “The social justice argument is the one we’re seeing used the most,” he says.
Lamb sees the same thing happening in Europe. “Often you do see those arguments come from right of center politicians, which suggests hypocrisy in a way because they’re not so interested in the social dimension on parallel issues of social justice like education policy or financial policy.”
While the social justice argument stands out as a favorite at the moment, Lamb says the others are in regular rotation too, from focusing on what individual consumers should be doing to reduce their own carbon footprints to promoting the ideas that technology will save us and that fossil fuels are a necessary part of the solution.
“These things are effective, they work,” Roberts says. “So what we need is inoculation – people need a sort of field guide to these arguments so they’re not just duped.”
This story is published as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of news outlets strengthening coverage of the climate story.
---
ok not so much energy poverty as lomborg shuffle
“In a 2016 ACSH article promoting the authority of discredited and debunked climate deniers and delayers, for instance, ExxonMobil’s funding fingerprints are nowhere to be found,” Supran said, referring to Meet the Scientific Outcasts and Mavericks,which was authored by Berezow.
In Are The ‘Green 20’ Suppressing Scientific Dissent?, posted in 2017, then-ACSH presidentHank Campbell, critiqued the New York attorney general’s office for its investigation of ExxonMobil for possibly deceiving its investors on the risks of climate change.
In another, Al Gore: Still Demented After All These Years, Berezow said in 2017 that theworld’s biggest health problem is poverty, not climate change. “When it comes to human disease, climate change is mostly a distraction. Eliminating poverty will do far more to save people’s lives than lowering the temperature a notch,” Berezow said.
Nowhere on the ACSH website is ExxonMobil’s funding acknowledged.
---
nice video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y-DHFVrJGc&feature=youtu.be
2017
7/9/15 epa head admits regs won't help agw
mostly UK tabloids?
daily caller batasch
42 subscribers 8/20
---
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421519304471
Highlights
•
There are important structural energy poverty vulnerability inequalities in the EU.
•
A geographical pattern of structural energy poverty vulnerability was observed.
•
The most vulnerable countries are located in eastern and southern Europe.
•
Excess winter mortality risk is higher in countries with greater vulnerability.
•
Acting on structural determinants of energy poverty can have an impact on health.
==
...Conclusions: High seasonal mortality in southern and western Europe could be reduced through improved protection from the cold indoors, increased public spending on health care, and improved socioeconomic circumstances resulting in more equitable income distribution.
==
Fuel poverty crisis: 3,000 Britons dying each year because ...
www.independent.co.uk › ... › Business › Business News
1.
Dozens die across Europe as cold weather blights continent ...
www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Europe
1.
January 2017 European cold wave - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › January_2017_European_col...
2.
More deaths in winter - CBS
www.cbs.nl › en-gb › news › 2018/07 › more-deaths-i...
1.
https://newrepublic.com/article/153359/seductive-stupidity-andrew-wheeler
no lnx
The Seductive Stupidity of Andrew Wheeler
The EPA chief's latest argument against fighting climate change is astonishingly foolish-but it's exactly what most of us want to hear.
By EMILY ATKIN
March 20, 2019
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler is not your average climate denier. Unlike President Donald Trump, he's admitted that global warming is real and caused by humans. And unlike many Republicans in the House and Senate, he's admitted that its effects will be dangerous if warming continues unabated.
:{:{}:
}:
But when it comes to admitting that swift, aggressive action is necessary to slow the dangers of climate change, Wheeler is just like most Republicans: He denies it. In an interview with "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday, the former coal industry lobbyist said that global warming is simply too vague and distant a threat to focus on.
:{:{}:
}:
"On the climate change issue, it is an important issue that we have to be addressing and we are addressing it," Wheeler said. "But most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out." Instead of climate change, Wheeler argued that the EPA's efforts would be better spent focusing on cleaning up water in other countries. "We have 1,000 children die every day worldwide because they don't have safe drinking water," he said. "That's a crisis I think we can solve."
If humans didn't intend to keep living 50 to 75 years from now, Wheeler's argument might be a good one. But we do, making his argument exceedingly bad-as Twitter was kind enough to point out.
Nick Knudsen ???? #DemCast
@DemWrite
New EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler's feeling on the urgency of climate change?
Meh. ??????? Why worry? The effects of climate change are still "50 To 75 Years Out".
Wonder how the kids feel about that perspective. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-wheeler-epa-climate-change_n_5c9226ede4b0dbf58e465554 …
Wheeler's premise is also just plain wrong. "Most of the threats" from climate change are not far in the future; some really bad ones are happening right now.
Dave Levitan
?
@davelevitan
EPA administrator Wheeler says the effects of climate change are "50 to 75 years out," which I'm sure is a huge comfort to *checks notes* enormous swaths of humanity?
The EPA chief's claim that water pollution is a better focus because it's a crisis "we can solve" also falsely implies that climate change doesn't fall into that category. Last year, thousands of scientists from around the world put out a report saying humanity can prevent the worst climate impacts of the next 50 to 75 years-but only if we rapidly decarbonize the planet within about a dozen years. And even if we don't rapidly decarbonize within that time frame, we can still slow and prevent many terrible events by reducing emissions as quickly as we can.
The danger of Wheeler's comments, though, isn't that they're wrong or dumb. It's that they're extremely relatable. They represent everything the human brain wants to hear about climate change: that nothing that bad is currently happening; that anything truly awful will occur far down the road; and that we have plenty of time and space to prevent those horrific things from happening-even though the evidence tells us otherwise. "[Our] inability to deal with climate change is due in part to the way our mind is wired," reads a Time article from 2013, which outlines the psychological barriers to climate action.
Those psychological barriers have historically prevented much of the population from prioritizing global warming. And for the first time in a very long time, that's changing. As Robinson Meyer wrote in The Atlantic on Tuesday, America is experiencing "a potential upheaval in how important voters consider climate policy." That's inspired at least some Republicans stop denying the problem and start focusing on solutions, Meyer wrote.
Wheeler doesn't seem interested in solutions. So he's resorted to playing on the most powerful de-motivator we have: our brains.
Emily Atkin is a contributing editor to The New Republic and the author of the climate newsletter Heated.
@emorwee
Read MoreClimate Change, Politics, Psychology, Science, Environment, Andrew Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency
---
==
guk ctt 1019
The director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s (CEI) Center for Energy and Environment, Myron Ebell, for example, told the Guardian: “CEI believes strongly that the policies being proposed by climate alarmists to deal with global warming pose much greater threats to human flourishing than do the effects of global warming. Abundant, affordable energy is a necessary condition of human wellbeing but the global energy-rationing policiesbeing pursued, like those in the Paris climate treaty,threaten to consign billions of people around the world to energy poverty and perpetual economic stagnation.”
==
---
no lnx
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/09/03/comment-amazon-fire-bolsonaro-climate-denier-commentators-defence
Comment: Of Course These Climate Science Deniers Jumped to Bolsonaro's Defence Over Amazon Fires
By Mike Small • Tuesday, September 3, 2019 - 14:58
The burning of the Amazon rainforest has unified the public in shock and fear like no other event in recent times. It has become a symbol of where ecocide meets human suffering.
Dismay at the destruction has come from diverse voices ?— from world leaders meeting at the G7 to indigenous people directly affected. But even in this moment, a cabal of commentators tied to networks pushing climate science denial have used their platform to defend the destruction.
“Not since the dictatorship have we lived through such a tough moment,” Jaime Siqueira, the head of the Indigenous Work Centre (CTI), a Brazilian NGO supporting indigenous communities fighting to defend their lands, told the Guardian. Although Jair Bolsonaro’s hostility to indigenous rights is well-documented, the latest assault on the Amazon was not anticipated. Campaigners now believe that under Brazil’s new administration indigenous communities face their most severe threat since the 1970s.
Interesting then to hear Spiked’s People’s Champion Brendan O'Neill speaking up for destruction in an inevitable tirade, arguing: “Brazil is either a sovereign nation or it isn’t. If it is a sovereign nation, then it has every right to pursue economic growth as it sees fit. The rainforest belongs to Brazilians.”
But clearly not the sort of Brazilians like Jaime Siqueira.
In Spiked’s analysis there is no distinction between national reserves, indigenous land and communities and illegal logging: it's all just 'Brazil'. In O’Neill’s analysis, the environmental catastrophe we face is either not happening at all or of secondary importance to the holy grail of economic development. Given the website is funded by the billionaire Koch industry empire, that’s perhaps no surprise.
And there were others cheerleading Bolsonaro's burning. Over at Conservative Woman, Kathy Gyngell cautions:
“In the heat built up over this apparent climate catastrophe, few appear to have stopped to question the accuracy of the initial reporting or the meaning of the original Nasa pictures. The Global Warming Policy Foundation,however, have drawn our attention to a number of articles which suggest that the MSM may have been stoking the flames of panic.”
This is the same Global Warming Policy Foundation that was set up by Thatcher’s former chancellor Nigel Lawson to cast doubt on mainstream climate science at every turn. The same Global Warming Policy Foundation that was part of a coordinated effort to push for a regulatory bonfire courtesy of Brexit. And the same Global Warming Policy Foundation of which Gyngell is now a director (a fact she notably doesn’t disclose in her article).
Matt Ridley, another Global Warming Policy Foundation affiliate (and another who does not declare his affiliation to the climate science denial campaign group), repeats O'Neill's notion of the magic of economic development and growth in The Spectator.
He argues: “Getting people on to fossil fuels and away from burning wood for fuel spares trees. It is in the poorest countries, mainly in Africa, that men and women still gather firewood for cooking and bushmeat for food, instead of using electricity or gas and farmed meat.” //SHILLENBERGER
From this observation he makes an impressive leap, arguing: “The trouble with the apocalyptic rhetoric is that it can seem to justify drastic but dangerous solutions. The obsession with climate change has slowed the decline of deforestation.”
Ridley does concede that “it is probably true that President Jair Bolsonaro’s rhetoric has encouraged those who want to resume logging and clearing forest and contributed to this year’s uptick in fires in the country.”
But, as befits his ideology, for Ridley the subject of blame should actually be (as usual) climate policy. In Ridley’s world, there is no climate crisis. There is no Amazon crisis. And if there was, it would be environmentalists’ fault anyway.
This is perhaps depressingly predictable, as the people arguing that we embrace such destruction are those that stand to profit from it ?— Ridley owns a coal mine, O’Neill's website is funded by the Kochs, and Gyngell sits on the board of a group whose raison d’etre is to persuade everyone that environmental regulation is entirely unnecessary.
All while the Amazon burns.
Mike Small is the Founder and Editor of Bella Caledonia. He was DeSmog UK's Deputy Editor from March to December 2018, and continues to contribute to the publication.
==
==
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/exxon-outlook-for-energy-report-counterattack/
Tom D
Around the world, carbon-based fuels are under attack. Increasingly grim economic pressures, growing popular resistance, and the efforts of government regulators have all shocked the energy industry. Oil prices are falling, colleges and universities are divesting from their carbon stocks, voters are instituting curbs on hydro-fracking, and delegates at the UNclimate conference in Peru have agreed to impose substantial restrictions on global carbon emissions at a conference in Paris later in the year. All this has been accompanied by what might be viewed as a moral assault on the very act of extracting carbon-based fuels from the earth, in which the major oil, gas, and coal companies find themselves portrayed as the enemies of humankind.
Under such pressures, you might assume that Big Energy would react defensively, perhaps apologizing for its role in spurring climate change while assuming a leadership position in planning for the transition to a post-carbon economy. But you would be wrong: instead of retreating, the major companies have gone on the offensive, extolling their contributions to human progress and minimizing the potential for renewables to replace fossil fuels in just about any imaginable future.
That the big carbon outfits would seek to perpetuate their privileged market position in the global economy is, of course, hardly surprising. After all, oil is the the most valuable commodity in international commerce and major producing firms like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell regularly top lists of the world’s most profitable enterprises. Still, these companies are not just employing conventional legal and corporate tactics to protect their position, they’re mounting a moral assault of their own, claiming that fossil fuels are an essential factor in eradicating poverty and achieving a decent life on this planet.
Improbable as such claims may seem, they are being echoed by powerful officials around the world—typically, the leaders of carbon-producing nations like Russia and Saudi Arabia or the representatives of American energy-producing states like Texas and Kentucky. Count on one thing: this crew of fossil fuel enthusiasts is intent on ensuring that any path to a carbon-free future will, at best, be long and arduous. While you’re at it, add top Congressional leaders to this crew, since many of the Republican victors in the 2014 midterm election are from oil and coal-producing states and regularly laud carbon production for its contribution to local prosperity, while pocketing contributions by Big Oil and other energy firms.
Unless directly challenged, this pro-carbon offensive—backed by copious Big Energy advertising—is likely to attract at least as much favor as the claims of anti-carbon activists. At this point, of course, the moral arguments against carbon consumption are—or at least should be—well known. The oil, gas, and coal companies, it is claimed, are selfishly pursuing mega-profits at the expense of the climate, the environment, our children and grandchildren, and even possibly a future of any reasonable sort for humanity as a whole. “Basically [the big energy companies have] said, we’re going to wreck the planet, we don’t care what you say, we think we can, and we dare you to stop us,” observed climate activist and 350.org cofounder Bill McKibben in a recent interview. This outlook was reflected in many of the signs carried by the estimated 400,000 demonstrators who participated in the People’s Climate March in New York City last September.
The fossil fuel industry is often also portrayed as the nucleus of a global system of wealth and power that drags down democracy and perpetuates grotesque planetary inequalities. “Fossil fuels really do create a hyper-stratified economy,” explained Naomi Klein, author of the bestselling book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. “It’s the nature of the resources that they are concentrated, and you need a huge amount of infrastructure to get them out and to transport them. And that lends itself to huge profits and they’re big enough that you can buy off politicians.”
Views like these animate the struggles against “fracking” in the United States, against the transport of tar-sands oil via the Keystone XL pipeline, and against the shipment of coal to ports in the Pacific Northwest. They also undergird the driveto rid college and university endowments and other institutions of their fossil fuel stocks, which gained momentum in recent months, thanks to the decisions of both the Stanford University board of trustees to divest from coal company stocks and of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to eventually rid itself of its fossil fuel stocks and invest in alternative energy.
Once upon a time, the giant carbon companies like Exxon sought to deflect these attacks by denying the very existence of climate change or the role of humans in causing it—or at least by raising the banner of “uncertainty” about the science behind it. They also financed the efforts of rogue scientists to throw doubt on global warming. While denialism still figures in the propaganda of some carbon companies, they have now largely chosen to embrace another strategy: extolling the benefits of fossil fuels and highlighting their contributions to human wellbeing and progress.
At the moment, this carbon counterattack is most clearly and fully articulated in the speeches of top industry officials and in various corporate publications. Of these, the most recent and authoritative, ExxonMobil’s The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040, was released in December. Described as a planning guide for future corporate investment and decision-making, the Outlookcombines an analysis of global energy trends with a summary of the company’s pro-carbon ethos—and so offers us a vivid look at where Big Energy is heading in its counterattack on the climate movement.
---
e&e energy poverty Tag BS 820
https://eelegal.org/category/issues/energy-poverty/
E&E Legal Logo
Search for:
Search...
Home
Who We Are
Education
Legal
Policy
Investigations
Donate
Contact
Energy Poverty
Home/Issues/Energy Poverty
Grimes: California Energy Prices Continue to Rise Higher Than Other States Gallery
Grimes: California Energy Prices Continue to Rise Higher Than Other States
6
08, 2020
Grimes: California Energy Prices Continue to Rise Higher Than Other States
August 6th, 2020|California, Energy Poverty, Grimes, Marxism, Media Coverage, Tyranny
byKaty GrimesAs Appearing in the California Globe The average 2020 annual residential electricity bill was 25.9% higher than in 2010 The Center for Jobs and the Economy at the California Business Roundtable reports that California gas and energy prices continued to rise higher in July than nearly all other states. “These outcomes mean [...]
Read More
Grimes: California Labor and Business Advocates Call For Diverse Energy Options and Solutions Gallery
Grimes: California Labor and Business Advocates Call For Diverse Energy Options and Solutions
21
08, 2019
Grimes: California Labor and Business Advocates Call For Diverse Energy Options and Solutions
August 21st, 2019|"Climate Change", California, Energy Poverty, Grimes, Media Coverage, Socialism
by Katy Grimes, Senior Media Fellow and California Globe Editor As appearing in the California Globe State Legislature has passed mandates for ending the use of natural gas A press conference Tuesday by the California Business Roundtable had state, labor leaders and the business community there to call upon Governor Gavin Newsom to support a [...]
Read More
WND: Trump being honored for defense of U.S. Gallery
WND: Trump being honored for defense of U.S.
19
07, 2019
WND: Trump being honored for defense of U.S.
July 19th, 2019|"Climate Change", 2015 Paris Talks, Bad Science, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage
WND Exclusive Edward Teller Award recognizes work opposing 'failed hypothesis' of climate change President Trump is being honored by Doctors for Disaster Preparedness for his defense of the nation, including his withdrawal from the Paris climate deal. The organization, which is holding its 37th annual meeting in Tucson, Arizona, this weekend, decided to recognize [...]
Read More
Grimes: California Gas Prices Causing Spike in National Average Gallery
Grimes: California Gas Prices Causing Spike in National Average
5
05, 2019
Grimes: California Gas Prices Causing Spike in National Average
May 5th, 2019|Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Grimes, Media Coverage, Socialism
by Katy Grimes, Senior Media Fellow and California Globe Editor As appearing in the California Globe Gov. Newsom wants to know why CA gas is so high California’s high gas prices are behind the spike in the national average cost of a gallon of gas. California’s average price of $4.096 is up 44 cents from [...]
Read More
Grimes: Bill to Cut Oil and Gas Production In California Passes First Committee Gallery
Grimes: Bill to Cut Oil and Gas Production In California Passes First Committee
23
04, 2019
Grimes: Bill to Cut Oil and Gas Production In California Passes First Committee
April 23rd, 2019|Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Green Groups, Grimes, Media Coverage, Scandal, Socialism
by Katy Grimes, Senior Media Fellow and California Globe Editor As appearing in the California Globe ‘We have so much to clean up in California’ A bill sponsored by a multitude of environmental justice groups, would cut the majority of oil and natural gas production in California. Coupled with environmental groups demanding Gov. Gavin Newsom [...]
Read More
Grimes: Legislation Would End Oil and Gas Production In Most of California Gallery
Grimes: Legislation Would End Oil and Gas Production In Most of California
22
04, 2019
Grimes: Legislation Would End Oil and Gas Production In Most of California
April 22nd, 2019|Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Grimes, Media Coverage, Socialism
by Katy Grimes, Senior Media Fellow and California Globe Editor As appearing in the California Globe The ‘Keep it In the Ground’ movement claims oil production adversely impacts public health and safety The “Keep it In the Ground,” anti-oil and gas industry movement is going after the industry with more legislation disguised to address health [...]
Read More
Fox News: Green New Deal rollout rattles both sides of climate change debate Gallery
Fox News: Green New Deal rollout rattles both sides of climate change debate
23
02, 2019
Fox News: Green New Deal rollout rattles both sides of climate change debate
February 23rd, 2019|"Scare Pollution", Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Green New Deal, Media Coverage, Milloy
On February 23, E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow joined Fox News to discuss the Green New Deal.
Read More
Richardson’s Appearance on the The Dan Rivers Show to DiscussEnergy Poverty Gallery
Richardson’s Appearance on the The Dan Rivers Show to Discuss Energy Poverty
31
01, 2019
Richardson’s Appearance on the The Dan Rivers Show to Discuss Energy Poverty
January 31st, 2019|"Climate Change", Energy Poverty, Green New Deal, Media Coverage, Richardson
On January 29, E&E Legal President Craig Richardson joined the Dan Rivers Show Show to discuss his Washington Examiner op-ed, "The 'Green New Deal' is a prescription for poverty."
Read More
Richardson’s Appearance on The Conservative Commando Show to Discuss Energy Poverty Gallery
Richardson’s Appearance on The Conservative Commando Show to Discuss Energy Poverty
29
01, 2019
Richardson’s Appearance on The Conservative Commando Show to Discuss Energy Poverty
January 29th, 2019|"Climate Change", Energy Poverty, Green New Deal, Media Coverage, Richardson
On January 29, E&E Legal President Craig Richardson joined The Conservative Commando Show Show to discuss his Washington Examiner op-ed, "The 'Green New Deal' is a prescription for poverty."
Read More
Richardson’s Appearance on the John Steigerwald ShowRe: Energy Poverty Gallery
Richardson’s Appearance on the John Steigerwald Show Re: Energy Poverty
29
01, 2019
Richardson’s Appearance on the John Steigerwald Show Re: Energy Poverty
January 29th, 2019|"Climate Change", Energy Poverty, Green New Deal, Media Coverage, Richardson
On January 29, E&E Legal President Craig Richardson joined the John Steigerwald Show to discuss his Washington Examiner op-ed, "The 'Green New Deal' is a prescription for poverty."
Read More
Richardson’s Appearance Discussing Energy Poverty on the Steve Gruber ShowGallery
Richardson’s Appearance Discussing Energy Poverty on the Steve Gruber Show
29
01, 2019
Richardson’s Appearance Discussing Energy Poverty on the Steve Gruber Show
January 29th, 2019|"Climate Change", Energy Poverty, Green New Deal, Media Coverage, Richardson
On January 29, E&E Legal President Craig Richardson joined the Steve Gruber Radio Show to discuss his Washington Examiner op-ed, "The 'Green New Deal' is a prescription for poverty."
Read More
Richardson: The ‘Green New Deal’ is a prescription for poverty Gallery
Richardson: The ‘Green New Deal’ is a prescription for poverty
28
01, 2019
Richardson: The ‘Green New Deal’ is a prescription for poverty
January 28th, 2019|Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, Richardson
by Craig Richardson, E&E Legal President As Appearing in the Washington Examiner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her allies have made a big splash in advancing the so-called “Green New Deal,” which is supposedly intended to help the environment and address poverty. Ironically, this measure will most certainly only harm those already living in poverty and [...]
Read More
Press Release: As COP-23 Kicks Off, E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video Calling on Pres. Trump to Withstand Pressures to Impose Devastating Paris Climate Treaty Gallery
Press Release: As COP-23 Kicks Off, E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video Calling on Pres. Trump to Withstand Pressures to Impose Devastating Paris Climate Treaty
6
11, 2017
Press Release: As COP-23 Kicks Off, E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video Calling on Pres. Trump to Withstand Pressures to Impose Devastating Paris Climate Treaty
November 6th, 2017|2015 Paris Talks, Energy Poverty, Paris Climate Treaty, Press Releases, Richardson, Video
Washington, D.C. – Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) released a video calling on Pres. Trump to withstand pressures by global elites to impose the devastating "climate" policies, and reverse his pledge to withdraw from the Paris Climate Treaty, as the world's global elites kick off the United Nation's Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Germany. The video elaborates [...]
Read More
E&E Legal President Craig Richardson Appears on David Knight’s Real News to Discuss Energy Poverty Gallery
E&E Legal President Craig Richardson Appears on David Knight’s Real News to Discuss Energy Poverty
26
09, 2017
E&E Legal President Craig Richardson Appears on David Knight’s Real News to Discuss Energy Poverty
September 26th, 2017|Conflict of Interest, Endangerment Finding, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, Richardson
On Tuesday September 27, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute's President Craig Richardson appeared on David Knight's Real News to talk about energy poverty. E&E Legal recently released a revised Energy Poverty video.
Read More
Press Release: E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video to Encourage President Trump to Remain Firm on U.S. Commitment to Withdraw from Paris Treaty Gallery
Press Release: E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video to Encourage President Trump to Remain Firm on U.S. Commitment to Withdraw from Paris Treaty
21
09, 2017
Press Release: E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video to Encourage President Trump to Remain Firm on U.S. Commitment to Withdraw from Paris Treaty
September 21st, 2017|2015 Paris Talks, Energy Poverty, Paris Climate Treaty, Press Releases, Richardson, Video
Washington, D.C. – Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) released an updated version of its Energy Poverty video, elaborating on the terrible human cost of "climate" policies (with no actual projected impact on climate), noting political and legal developments since President Trump's dramatic announcement on June 1, 2017, that the United States would withdraw from the [...]
Read More
Liberty News Now: Dem Civil War As California Prepares To Pass $3 Billion Tesla Bailout Gallery
Liberty News Now: Dem Civil War As California Prepares To Pass $3 Billion Tesla Bailout
22
08, 2017
Liberty News Now: Dem Civil War As California Prepares To Pass $3 Billion Tesla Bailout
August 22nd, 2017|Billionaire Scammers, Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, Tanton
by Chuck Hoster Liberty News Now A California state bill to give $3 billion in state subsidies to electric vehicle manufacturers is seeing an intense fight in the Senate. The bill, a potential boon for car manufacturers like Tesla Motors, is being criticized by opponents for giving taxpayer money to industries that serve to enrich [...]
Read More
Walcher: California’s Economic Suicide Gallery
Walcher: California’s Economic Suicide
23
06, 2017
Walcher: California’s Economic Suicide
June 23rd, 2017|California, Clean Power Plan, Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, States, Walcher
by E&E Legal's Senior Policy Fellow Greg Walcher As Appearing in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel Last fall, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law requiring his state to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels. That ratchets the state’s already severe limits down even tighter, now requiring a reduction to levels [...]
Read More
Media Advisory: E&E Legal’s Steve Milloy Presents Exxon Mobil Shareholder Proposal Calling Out Management for ‘Aiding & Abetting’ ‘Climate Activists’ Gallery
Media Advisory: E&E Legal’s Steve Milloy Presents Exxon Mobil Shareholder Proposal Calling Out Management for ‘Aiding & Abetting’ ‘Climate Activists’
31
05, 2017
Media Advisory: E&E Legal’s Steve Milloy Presents Exxon Mobil Shareholder Proposal Calling Out Management for ‘Aiding & Abetting’ ‘Climate Activists’
May 31st, 2017|"Climate Change", Billionaire Scammers, Conflict of Interest, Energy Poverty, Milloy, Press Releases
For Immediate Release: May 31, 2017 Contact: Craig Richardson info@eelegal.org 202-810-2001 -MEDIA ADVISORY- E&E Legal Senior Policy Fellow Steve Milloy to Present Shareholder Proposal at Today's ExxonMobil Annual Meeting Proposals Calls Out Management for Betraying Shareholders by ‘Aiding and Abetting’ Extremist ‘Climate Activists’ Enemies Dallas, TX - Steve Milloy, senior policy fellow for the Energy & Environment [...]
Read More
Tanton: No, Jerry, California Is NOT Leading Gallery
Tanton: No, Jerry, California Is NOT Leading
16
12, 2016
Tanton: No, Jerry, California Is NOT Leading
December 16th, 2016|"Climate Change", Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, Tanton, War on Coal
by Tom Tanton, E&E Legal's Director of Science and Technology Assessment As Appearing in Canada Free PressIn a fiery speech to the American Geophysical Union conference, California Governor Brown continued his quest regarding climate change, but has apparently revealed a chink in his armor. He threatened incoming President Trump that California will go it’s own way [...]
Read More
Richardson: An opportunity to return balance to energy policy Gallery
Richardson: An opportunity to return balance to energy policy
8
12, 2016
Richardson: An opportunity to return balance to energy policy
December 8th, 2016|Clean Power Plan, Energy Poverty, Media Coverage, Richardson, Transition
by Craig E. Richardson, E&E Legal President As Appearing in The Hill America needs to develop its natural resources within a framework of policies that protect the Earth through wise stewardship of the land. While the past eight years have yielded a windfall of policies, there has been little wisdom attached to them. Take for [...]
Read More
LOAD MORE POSTS
Search for:
Search...
Search News By Category
Search News By Category
Energy Poverty
Archives
Archives
Select Month
Join our E-mail list!
Popular
Recent
Legal Insurrection: Igniting the Fight on Climate Alarmism
June 22nd, 2016
Press Release: E&E Legal Releases Energy Poverty Video to Coincide with World Leaders ‘Mother Earth Day’ UN Gathering to Sign the Paris ‘Climate’ Treaty
April 19th, 2016
E&E Legal Letters
E&E Legal publishes a quarterly newsletter, E&E Legal Letters. Click here to view the latest and archived additions.
1350 Beverly Rd., #115-445, McLean, VA 22101
Phone: 202-810-2001
Email: Info@eelegal.org
E&E Legal | Design & Development by Cause Inspired Media | All Rights
==
If a climate movement is going to challenge the energy powers of this planet effectively, it’s crucial to grasp the vision into which Big Energy is undoubtedly planning to sink incredible resources and which, across much of the planet, will become a living, breathing argument for ignoring the catastrophic warming of the planet. They present it, of course, as a glowing dreamscape of a glorious future—though a nightmare is what should come to mind.
Here, then, in a nutshell is the argument that Big Energy is going to seed into the planet for the foreseeable future. Prepare yourself.
No Growth Without Us
The cornerstone of the Exxon report is its claims that ever-increasing supplies of energy are needed to sustain economic growth and ensure human betterment, and that fossil fuels alone exist in sufficient quantity (and at affordable enough prices) to satisfy rising international demand. “Forecasting long-term energy trends begins with a simple fact: people need energy,” the report asserts. “Over the next few decades, population and income growth—and an unprecedented expansion of the global middle class—are expected to create new demands for energy.”
Some of this added energy, Exxon acknowledges, will come from nuclear and renewable energy. Most, however, will have to come from fossil fuels. All told, the Outlook estimates, the world will need 35% more energy in 2040 than it does today. That would mean adding an additional 191 quadrillion British thermal units (BTUs) to global supplies over and above the 526 quadrillion BTUs consumed in 2010. A small percentage of those added BTUs, about 12%, will come from renewables, but the vast majority—estimated by Exxon at 67%—will be provided by fossil fuels.
Wthout fossil fuels, this argument holds, there can be no economic growth. Here’s how Exxon CEO and Chairman Rex Tillerson puts it: “Energy is fundamental to economic growth, and oil is fundamental because to this point in time, we have not found, through technology or other means, another fuel that can substitute for the role that oil plays in transportation, not just passenger, individual transportation, but commercial transportation, jet fuel, marine, all the ways in which we use oil as a fuel to move people and things about this planet.”
Natural gas is equally essential, Tillerson argues, because it is the world’s fastest-growing source of energy and a key ingredient in electric power generation. Nor will coal be left out of the mix. It, too, will play an important role in promoting economic growth, largely by facilitating a rapid increase in global electricity supplies. Despite all the concern over coal’s contributions to both urban pollution and climate change, Exxon predicts that it will remain “the No. 1 fuel for power generation” in 2040.
Yes, other sources of energy will play a role in helping to satisfying global needs, but without carbon-based fuels, Exxon insists, economic growth will screech to a halt and the world’s poor and disadvantaged will stay immersed in poverty.
Propelling the New Global Middle Class
If there is one overarching theme to the new Exxon ethos, it is that we are witnessing the emergence of a new global middle class with glittering possibilities and that this expanding multitude, constituting perhaps one-half of the world’s population by 2040, will require ever greater quantities of oil, coal, and natural gas if it is to have any hope of achieving its true potential.
Citing data from the Brookings Institution, the company notes that the number of people who earn enough to be considered members of that global middle class will jump from approximately 1.9 billion in 2010 to 4.7 billion in 2030—representing what it calls “the largest collective increase in living standards in history.” China and India will be the two countries adding most substantially to the global middle class, with each acquiring hundreds of millions of newly affluent citizens, but substantial gains will also be achieved by such “key growth” countries as Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Thailand, and Indonesia.
The emergence of a middle-class bulge on a planetary scale, representing a kind of consumerism gone wild, is something to be celebrated the company insists in its new report, echoing the words of the UNDevelopment Programme: “When dozens of countries and billions of people move up the development ladder, as they are doing today, it has a direct impact on wealth creation and broader human progress in all countries and regions of the world.”
For all this to occur, however, that rising middle class will need staggering amounts of added energy—of course, we’re talking about new supplies of the same old carbon-based energy forms here—to build and power all the cars, homes, businesses, appliances, and resorts that such consumers would undoubtedly crave and demand. More income, Exxon explains, “means new demand for food, for travel, for electricity, for housing, schools, and hospitals”—and all of these benefits “depend on energy.”
By itself, an increase in world energy supplies could indeed be widely beneficial, if supplied largely by climate-friendly fuels. But such genuinely “alternative” sources of energy (into which, by the way, the giant energy companies have invested next to none of their profits) generally cost more than fossil fuels to produce, at least initially, and that, says Exxon, creates a problem once you consider where demand will be coming from in 2040.
According to the Outlook, virtually none of the expected increase in global energy demand will come from the older industrialized countries, which can afford more costly alternatives; rather, its source will be developing countries, which generally seek cheap energy quickly—that is, coal and natural gas for electricity generation and oil for transportation. Of the 201 quadrillion BTUs in added energy required by the developing world between now and 2040, predicts Exxon, 148 quadrillion, or 74%, will be provided by fossil fuels—a statistic that, if accurate, should chill us to the bone in climate change terms.
The role of fossil fuels in satisfying the aspirations of the world’s growing middle class is especially evident in the field of transportation. “Rising prosperity will drive increased demand for transportation,” the Outlook notes. “An expanding global middle class means millions of people will buy a car for the first time.” Between 2010 and 2040, the human population is expected to grow by 29%, from approximately seven billion to nine billion people; the global population of cars, SUVs, and other light-duty vehicles, however, is projected to grow by more than 100%, from 825 million to 1.7 billion. And while an increasing number of these vehicles will be powered by gas-electric hybrid engines, the majority will still be fueled by petroleum, pushing up the demand for petroleum and pumping ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
A rising middle class seeking more consumer products, urban amenities, and travel opportunities will also require a commensurate fleet of trucks, buses, trains, ships, and planes. Reliance on trucks and container ships for moving goods around the world will, in turn, generate a huge demand for diesel and heavy oil, while all those low-cost air carriers (like ill-fated Air Asia) will only up the requirement for aviation fuel.
Finally, the new global middle class will want more computers, flat-screen TVs, air-conditioners, and other appliances, stoking a soaring demand for electricity. Among the advanced nations that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a growing share of the energy used in generating electricity will indeed come from renewables and natural gas, while coal use will decline sharply. In non-OECD countries, however, the drive for electrification will be accompanied by a significant increase in the consumption of coal—from 54 quadrillion BTUs in 2010 to 82 quadrillion in 2040. This means that the non-OECD’s contribution to global warming will continue to soar, although that’s not a point that Exxon is likely to emphasize.
Carbon Humanitarianism
Nor does the Exxon blueprint neglect the needs of the world’s poorer citizens. “The progress enabled by modern energy has not reached everyone,” the Outlooknotes. “One out of every five people in the world still has no access to electricity. Even more lack modern cooking fuels.”
This is the basis for what can only be termed “carbon humanitarianism”—the claim that cheap carbon-based fuels are the best possible response to the energy-poor of the planet (despite everything we know about the devastation climate change will cause, above all in the lives of the poor). This vision of Big Energy as the Good Samaritan of our world was articulated by Rex Tillerson in a June 2013 address to the Asia Society Global Forum. “Approximately 1.3 billion people on our planet,” he said, “still do not have access to electricity for basic needs like clean water, cooking, sanitation, light, or for the safe storage of food and medicine… [which means that] the need to expand energy supplies has a humanitarian dimension that should inform and should guide our energy policy.”
Asked whether climate change didn’t pose a greater challenge to the world’s poor, Tillerson chose to demur. “I think here are much more pressing priorities that we… need to deal with,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations in June 2012. “There are still hundreds of millions, billions of people living in abject poverty around the world. They need electricity… They need fuel to cook their food on that’s not animal dung… They’d love to burn fossil fuels because their quality of life would rise immeasurably, and their quality of health and the health of their children and their future would rise immeasurably. You’d save millions upon millions of lives by making fossil fuels more available to a lot of the part of the world that doesn’t have it.”
In fact, Exxon predicts that reliance on fossil fuels will grow fastest in the poorest parts of the world—precisely the areas that are expected to suffer the most from climate change. Africa, for example, is expected to witness a 103% increase in net energy consumption between now and 2040, with 83% of that increase supplied by fossil fuels.
We Can Do It Better
The final part of the industry’s counterattack is the claim that, for all their purported benefits, renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power are just not up to the task of providing the necessary extra energy needed to sustain economic growth and propel billions of people into the middle class.
The problem, Exxon claims, is that wind and solar are more costly than the fossil fuel alternatives and so are not growing fast enough to meet rising world demand. Even though the energy provided by these renewables will expand by 315% between now and 2040, it still represents such a small share of the total global energy mix that, by the end of this period, it will only reach the 4% mark in its share of total world energy consumption (compared to 77% for carbon fuels). Renewables are also said to be problematic as they provide only intermittent sources of energy—failing at night and on windless days—and must be bolstered by other fuels to ensure uninterrupted energy output.
Facing the Challenge
Put together, this represents a dazzling vision of a future in which growing numbers of people enjoy the benefits of abundant energy and unlimited growth. You can already imagine the heartwarming TV commercials that will be generated on a massive scale to propagate such a message: pictures of hard-working individuals of all genders and hues enjoying the American Dream globally thanks to Exxon and its cohorts. Needless to say, in such imagery there will be nothing to mar the promise of unbridled prosperity for all—no horrific droughts, colossal superstorms, or mass migrations of desperate people seeking to flee devastated areas.
But this vision, like so much contemporary advertising, is based on a lie: in this case, on the increasingly bizarre idea that, in the twenty-first century, humanity can burn its way through significant parts of the planet’s reserves of fossil fuels to achieve a world in which everything is essentially the same—there’s just more of it for everyone. In the world portrayed by Exxon, it’s possible for a reassuring version of business-as-usual to proceed without environmental consequences. In that world, the unimpeded and accelerated release of carbon into the atmosphere has no significant impact on people’s lives. This is, of course, a modern fairy tale that, if believed, will have the most disastrous of results.
Someday, it will also be seen as one of the more striking lies on whatever’s left of the historical record. In fact, follow this vision to 2040, burning through whatever fossil fuels the energy companies and energy states can pull out of the earth and the ballooning carbon emissions produced will ensure planetary warming far beyond the two degrees Celsius deemed by scientists to be the maximum that the planet can safely absorb without catastrophic climate effects.
In fact, those dreamy landscapes in the new pro-carbon version of the planetary future will, in reality, be replaced by burning forests, flooded coastlines, and ever-expanding deserts. Forget the global rise of the middle class, forget all those cars and trucks and planes and resorts, forget the good life entirely. As climate conditions deteriorate, croplands will wither, coastal cities and farmlands will be eradicated, infrastructure will be devastated, the existing middle class will shrink, and the poor will face ever-increasing deprivation.
Preventing these catastrophes will involve sustained and dedicated effort by all those who truly care about the future of humanity. This will certainly require better educating people about the risks of climate change and the role played by fossil fuel combustion in producing it. But it will also require deconstructing and exposing the futuristic fantasies deployed by the fossil fuel companies to perpetuate their dominance. However fraudulent their arguments may be, they have the potential to blunt significant progress on climate change and so must be vigorously repudiated. Unless we do so, the apostles of carbon will continue to dominate the debate and bring us ever closer to a planetary inferno. This is the only way to thwart and discredit those who seek to perpetuate the Reign of Carbon.
Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What’s Left. A documentary film version of his book Blood and Oil is available from theMedia Education Foundation. Links to his work can be found at michaelklare.com.To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit’s Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World
---