Climate Shakedown

WSJ Freelink COP 27 shakedown

It’s all about the money.

21 thoughts on “Climate Shakedown

  1. The climate issue has always been about money. That is all that matters.

    Few in the industrialized nations give a crap about the Third World except as a source of raw materials and cheap labor.

    Keep them from starving but also from flexing some muscle. Just like our illegal immigrants.

    Here is the reality. No matter the causes, the Third World will suffer hugely from climate change. We can pay them now or, as the FRAM ads said, pay them later. Later meaning catastrophic refugee problems that will make our border issues seem petty.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. How will climate change harm the Third World?

      If you read the article, you saw that China already emits 2/3rds more CO2 than Europe and the US combined. And they have coal plants scheduled to come online by 2025 that exceed our total inventory. Yet China is not asked to contribute a dime to these “reparations.”

      Further, the Third World has benefited hugely from Western industry. It is deindustrialization that threatens their wellbeing.

      There is no climate crisis. There are some adaptations required, But they are unavoidable and small compared to the benefits we get from fossil fuels and CO2 fertilization.


      1. “There is no climate crisis.”

        The US military would beg to differ.

        The Pentagon is warning that disruption to fisheries could spark conflict over food security, and unpredictable rainfall could increase tensions over access to rivers that cross national boundaries, such as the Nile and the Mekong. 143 million people in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia could move for climate-driven reasons. It identifies 11 countries in the category of acute risk from climate change: Afghanistan, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iraq, Myanmar, North Korea, Nicaragua and Pakistan. Two of them are nuclear armed and will not go quietly into starvation.

        The violence in Syria has been linked to drought-induced food insecurity and migration from rural to urban areas. And the U.S. Navy has sent warships into the Mediterranean Sea as a result.

        The navy’s leaders have been working to address this reality head-on, despite resistance from some politicians who continue to debate the very fact of climate change.

        The Navy expects increasing flooding at naval facilities at Norfolk; flash flooding and mudslides in Hawaii, home to the navy’s Pacific Fleet; and intensified droughts in California, where the navy has more than $40 billion in assets. In Alaska, the navy is being forced to rebuild and relocate roads, buildings, and airfields as the permafrost melts, and it might eventually have to relocate some of its bases.

        Assets were designed and built to be resilient to historic sea levels and storm intensity. But sea levels rose on average nearly half a foot over the 20th century, a rate faster than in any century since at least 800 BC. The rise so far is mostly owing to thermal expansion (warmer water takes up more space), but future sea level changes are likely to be driven by melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

        And a little closer to home:

        “As the navy celebrates the centennial of its enormous Norfolk base, the sea level there is a foot and a half higher than when the base was established, during World War I. Since much of the base sits less than three feet above sea level, heavy rains and higher-than-usual tides are flooding it more often, submerging some of its piers and immersing the electrical wires and steam pipes that run underneath. Pier inundation now happens at least monthly, impeding training and maintenance schedules and thus fleet readiness. Sea levels are rising at the Norfolk base an inch every six years—more than double the global average rate. Tidal flooding at Norfolk is expected to increase from the current rate of nine times a year to 280 times a year by 2050, and low-lying areas could be underwater 10% of the time. And navy engineers expect sea levels to rise at Norfolk another two to four feet over the next 80 years, by which time as much as 20% of the base’s land might experience daily floods, essentially becoming part of the tidal zone.”

        So, you are reduced to a choice between adaptation and mitigation. If there is no mitigation, adaptation will soon be impossible.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. First, there is no drought in Syria outside historic cyclical levels, and no attribution of drought anywhere to climate change per the IPCC.

          Sea level at Norfolk will rise, as part of that is geologic subsidence, There has been no acceleration in real sea level rise since the end of the Little Ice Age. The rate from 1850 to date has been unchanged.

          The Navy is in the business if being prepared for anything, no matter how unlikely


          1. It’s not just the Navy. Every branch of the military is planning for a climate change crisis. The Air Force is going to “green energy” for its planes. The Army is planning for soldiers to have to fight in extreme heat and cold.

            There is a long history of conflicts over water in Syria because of the natural water scarcity, but in recent years, there has been an increase in incidences of water-related violence there and around the world. You can argue over the causes. You can not argue over increased frequencies.

            And, yes, the US military is in the business of being prepared. But it does not prepare for unlikely scenarios. The US military does serious research, without bias from environmentalists or fossil fuel lobbyists. The conclusions of the US military are: sea level rise is real, global warming is real, droughts and wildfires are increasing, countries are being destabilized by the harshening of environmental conditions. They are developing two approaches to the problem: mitigation and adaptation.

            The US military is “greening” its energy sources, modifying its planes to emit less damaging exhausts, going to electric vehicles. But there is only so much mitigation it can do. Therefore, it is adapting where it can, building higher seawalls, training for combat in harsher environments, moving military bases. But without mitigation from private industry, all adaptations will eventually fail.

            And, if there has been no change in sea level rise since 1850, how do you account for Norfolk’s flooding conditions that have gotten worse every year since I’ve been born. (And no, my birthdate is not quite 1850.)

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Green jet fuel costs about $1000 a gallon.

            I did not say there was no sea level rise, I said there was no acceleration in the rate over the time it has been measured.

            It is rising at the same rate it was before CO2 levels had risen significantly.


          3. Which costs more, green jet fuel or moving your entire base when it gets wiped out by a hurricane or burned to the ground in a wildfire?

            I’m not good at math, but WWI ended about 100 years ago. If the sea level rise is now 18 inches higher than it was then, that works out to about .18 inches per year every year, assuming the rise was the same every year. So 50 years ago, the sea level would have been 9 inches higher than it was in WWI and 9 inches lower than it is now. 50 years ago, I don’t remember any news articles about the Norfolk Naval Base flooding at all, much less on a regular monthly basis. It seems to me, the rate of sea level rise has increased recently.

            When I was in high school, I could drive anywhere during any rain storm and never have a problem. A few years ago, I was at a meeting in a downtown hotel that didn’t breakup until a horrendous rain storm had passed. The streets were so flooded, I could not get home. I had to go back to the hotel and, for a while, it was looking like I might have to rent a room for the night.

            Things are changing… whether you admit it or not.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. First, you have a false dilemma, the amount of CO2 we would withhold by using green fuel is minimal, especially considering China and India. Nothing the US can do would make more than a couple of inches of difference in sea level rise over the next 100 years. What we do just makes no difference.


            Norfolk has three things going against it. First, there is real (orthostatic) sea level rise of about 9 inches per hundred years.

            Second, there is rebound subsidence, of about the same amount.

            Finally, much of Norfolk is built of fill, which compresses over time.

            And none of those will be affected in the least by $1000 jet fuel.


          5. So you at least admit that sea level rise is happening. You disagree with scientists as to what is causing it, but at least you admit it is happening.

            And your solution is… do nothing. Just let it happen because you want the money from fossil fuels now and you’ll be dead when things reach crisis level anyway.

            I’m sure your grandchildren will understand… not.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. Scientists do not disagree with me on the causes of relative sea level rise at Norfolk. My numbers are those published by NOAA.

            My grandchildren will understand that I did not leave them so poor that they could not afford the cost of adapting.

            Short of nuking China and India so they have no industry to burn coal, there is nothing we can do that will lower CO2. China and India are both moving into Africa for resources. Botswana alone has enough proven coal resources to supply the whole world’s demand for 25 years at least. So, you think jet fuel made by algae is going to stop the sea from rising?

            In New Orleans, at Royal and Canal Streets, the pavement is 10 feet below sea level, due to the same kind of subsidence and compression of fill as Norfolk. New Orleans has dealt with that sea level problem successfully for a hundred years. Norfolk can too, it just has to get started. Putting off the engineering hoping that there is some way to wish the problem away just lets the clock run out.

            Stopping climate change is a lost cause, but thankfully, it won’t be nearly as extreme as the alarmists want you to believe. Adaptation is where our efforts should go.

            I really think you would benefit from this site, particularly the section on saturation.


          7. New Orleans isn’t the best example of cities that have prevented flooding you could have chosen.

            The human race as a whole (that includes China and India) will have to decide whether it wants to do something about climate change or go extinct. I’d like to think humans aren’t so stupid and greedy as to say “I’ve got mine, screw future generations.”

            And, if mitigation of some sort isn’t put in place, the price of adapting is going to cost your grandchildren way more than you will be leaving them.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. New Orleans did pretty well until corruption overcame design.

            It still has the largest low lift pumps in the world and they are at least 100 years old. Canal and Royal Sts are 10ft below sea level, and the river a quarter mile away is often as much as 20 feet above sea level. That’s a pretty impressive gradient to overcome.

            They are doing some things right.

            What existential threat do you think exists?



          9. I was in New Orleans once, before Katrina. I remember standing on the sidewalk and looking up to see ships sailing by. I was less impressed by the engineering than horrified by the possibilities. I thought, this is definitely not a place I’d want to live. Katrina proved me right.

            If the climate crisis “isn’t what it used to be” it’s because mitigation, inadequate though it is, is actually working. Solar power and wind power and electric vehicles are already having an effect.

            Just like the Clean Air Act slowed down the effects of air pollution (ever hear of “smog” anymore) and the Clean Water Act slowed down water pollution (you can throw lighted matches off of bridges over the Mississippi River now without setting the water on fire), the efforts to slow Global Warming are helping.

            Yes, the air and the water are still polluted in many places, but the legislation slowed the damage and saved countless lives. But there’s still more to be done. It’s the same with Global Warming. The damage has been slowed. But there’s still way more to be done.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. There has been a lot accomplished by the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, but there has been no reduction in CO2 emissions. Every reduction in the US and Europe has been canceled out 3 times over by China and India.

            The dire predictions made earlier are not coming true not because of mitigation but because the models were wrong all along


  2. “Benefits we get from . . . CO2 fertilization?”

    What baloney! There is no significant food crop that is constrained by lack of CO2. The “evidence” this hooey is based on is satellite images showing greener forested areas and grasslands neither of which provides any significant benefits. And these claims never deal with the negative effects on plants of higher temperatures, floods, and droughts.

    Fossil fuels be gobbled up willy nilly by the current generation is the epitome of selfishness. For no other reason than preserving them for future generations, we should use them far more judiciously.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Yeah, I know from grade school science that plants take in CO2 and give off Oxygen. I also know from my career in the fertilizer industry that CO2 is NOT the limiting factor for crop production. What shows some benefit in a lab or a greenhouse is irrelevant to what happens in the fields. And again, some theoretical marginal advantage is outweighed by more frequent weather extremes damaging or destroying crops. From your cite . . .

        “However, in natural conditions the beneficial effects of increased carbon dioxide may not be there because of negative effects of global warming.”

        Bottom line – an argument that says increased CO2 in the atmosphere is good for mankind is bunkum. IMHO.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Yet another classic example of the sheer stupidity of socialist liberals eager to use OPM to pay off others over some nonexistent nefarious boogyman to look like they “care”? Screwing the taxpayer seems to be a weekend staple of democrats, while sipping mimosas, for no other reason but to fool the weak of mind.


    1. You really have to look at Climate Alarmism as a religion. It has all the elements. guilt, retribution, propitiation, redemption.

      For those who have no religion but still have the need for one, embracing alarmism replaces the order and safety of religion,

      It’s a way of not facing their own mortality. They will cling to it no matter what rational arguments tell then their god doesn’t exist.


      1. “You really have to look at Climate Alarmism as a religion…”

        Your pop psychology is completely laughable. As is the smarmy condescension behind it.

        I would add, as with so many words, you are working with your own very broad definition of “alarmism.” Most people who believe we should try to be better stewards of the earth are not actually “alarmists.” There are very real very negative impacts of burning fossil fuel. Recognizing that fact and advocating steps toward mitigation of the damage is not “alarmism.” It is realism.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s