Donald Trump spent his time in the White house saying America couldn’t afford climate mitigation – what a foolish position

Through out his time in the white house, Donald Trump attacked climate change science foolishly mocked it by pointing out hot weather and generally undermined the long-term leading position that the American government has had in the climate change fight. It is of course true, that what ever words presidents have said about climate change, they have not invested enough in doing something about it. As such, despite having roughly 5% of the worlds population, the USA is the second biggest emitter, emitting roughly 15% of the world emissions each year.

Continue reading “Donald Trump spent his time in the White house saying America couldn’t afford climate mitigation – what a foolish position”

It just been uncovered: people working for trump are implanting climate denialism into scientific research

Multiple times in the last few years administration has taken a scientific report and decided to do something that completely contradicts his findings.

The most obvious of these is global warming, where it extends to the import of hunting trophies from abroad and the huge increase in the number of trophies allowed to be taken in the USA (likely to decimate wildlife populations within the country).

However having run up against this time and time again the trump administration is increasingly trying to forced all the arguments by putting in his false information into the report before it’s published.

An Insider in the interior department has been inputting the the totally discredited idea that trump has been regularly spouting- there’s an actuality extra carbon dioxide in the environment is good. Given the basis of the recent globally agreed treaties to deal with the increase in carbon dioxide emissions- and the clear need for the USA’s reduce it’s emissions given that it accounts for 25% of the world’s total, this is a clear attempt to justify abandoning its agreements.

In particular Trumps appointment who arrived early in his presidency, has continually tried to push the idea that at the current models have over-estimated the amount of warming that would occur. This is despite the data clearly stating this is not the case indeed if anything is has underestimated the impact.

The trump administration has attacked aggressively the interior department scientific outlook both in terms of studying future global warming and of studying diseases and epidemics. This second area has quite rightly come back to bite them as the Outbreak of the Corona virus has demonstrated the lack of readiness that the trump administration has for a significant illness spending in the population.

I should mention that this article was written in isolation from yesterdays article and on the basis of other articles, though it should be concerning that the Us government is both trying to make scientific papers play a smaller role in choosing what to do- and the same week an article suggesting that Trumps administration is demanding the right to change scientific articles to fit their own views before publishing.

Why is it necessary to do both? Is it clear, even to Trump, that whatever the position on scientific research you cannot be seen to continue to go against the evidence all the time? America currently leads the world in the amount of research it creates- however if Trump damages the reputation of this research and its impartiality, it could do untold damage to american universities and their world standings. This is likely to last far beyond Trumps administration- reelection or not.

Jeremy Clarkson now admits that global warming is real

Over the last few years, after being fired by the BBC Jeremy Clarkson and the original hosts of Top Gear have been making their new show, the Grand Tour.

While the format is different, the Grand Tour is essentially the same show show with a far bigger budget and and in line increases in the dramatic scenes that it can create.

Why is it newsworthy that Jeremy Clarkson is now saying that global warming is real, given that the majority of the rest of the scientific world reach this conclusion several decades ago? I would argue because he has been one of the most vocal people against the move towards electric cars and the need to reduce pollution. Also in his car shows he has generally reviewed big gas guzzling cars far more positively than efficient ones.

Then there is the argument that Jeremy Clarkson on behalf of Top Gear had with Elon Musk and Tesla. When the first Tesla car was released the Tesla Roadster, Top Gear reviewed it. Unfortunately all the evidence suggests that this was not a fair review. It was taken out on the track but it was claimed that it ran out of battery having covered ,less than half of the range that the Tesla car was supposed to be able to drive. 

Now certainly an electric sports car not being able to survive being driven around a track a number of times fitted into the Top Gear narrative of the time, furthermore when disputing their claims Elon Musk mention several issues:

Firstly apparently the person who dropped off the car saw a script lying on a table, and in the script it specifically stated that the car ran out of battery. I don’t believe this was actually factually disputed, though it seems completely peculiar as it destroys any suggestion that Top Gear is a reviewing program and simply makes it into drama.

The second issue that was raised, appears even more stupid than leaving a script lying around. All Tesla cars have a powerful computer that runs them and make sure everything is working, but this also gives a log of performance and what is going on with the car, and this log clearly stated that there was almost 50% of the battery still remaining at the time that he said it had 0 battery left. 

He does seem to have gone back on this dislike of Tesla during his new show, including several tesla’s including a Tesla Model x in in the lineup of the grand tour.

Apparently his new epiphany (that climate change is real) came about while on one of the trips for the Grand Tour. Filming in Cambodia he was trying to navigate the Mekong river from Siem Reap to Vietnam, but he found this impossible in places due to the river having dried up. He States he found this highly alarming and it was the first time they had encountered evidence so clear.

I personally would dispute this, he has been travelling the world for his car series for decades and there have been many scenes in many episodes that have clearly demonstrated an issue with changing climate. However whatever happened on this occasion it was clearly so obvious as be undisputable.

My question now is will this have any impact whatsoever. Only 2 months ago he called the climate activist Greta thunberg a spoilt brat, a bit rich coming from someone who lives a life that most of the world could only dream of and who has had a carbon footprint of perhaps 1000 normal people. I would like to see him doing something about it.

While the super fast cars are fun, there are several things of note. Electric cars are so rapidly catching up that it is likely that they will be able to overtake combustion engine cars in many of the areas that they still out compete in the near future. He inevitably in his shows takes on all sorts of challenges, it would be good to see more of these aim towards reducing the carbon footprint of whatever it is. 

I think it is an opinion that combustion engine cars still dominate in all categories, however whether it is or isn’t is irrelevant. The majority of travel is going to have to go go fossil fuel free in the near future if we are to have a hope of continuing to be able to live comfortably on Earth. This would be helped greatly if Car People who run TV shows well less bias towards combustion engines and we’re willing to talk about the negatives as well as the positives. This way as companies like Tesla lead the way another car company start to Electrify the range, there would be more petrol heads cheering on on the advances in electric cars rather than trying to put it down all the time.

It should be noted that James May and Richard Hammond while not contradicting Jeremy Clarkson’s views on Top Gear, have another project been a standing you positive about all sorts of electric cars.

It is something that they would have to be careful to not destroy the brand but I would hope that with this realisation, he would feel the need to undo some of the damage that is done in the the past few decades

SUV sale to blame for co2 emissions, not falling diesel sales

Over the last couple of decades, the UK had gradually reduced the amount of co2 emissions. Unfortunately, over the last couple of years the number of people driving large suv cars, which use far more fossil fuel has increased dramatically. 

This recent increase in fossil fuel suv use, has increased co2 emissions so much, as to eradicate the gains of the last 2 decades. If the UK is to meet its carbon reduction targets, the government must be paying more attention, and we must start increasing taxes on fossil fuel SUVs so that they are not a good option for most people, making the electric alternatives for economically viable.

Party leaders had a climate debate, what should we think

It is still frustrating that often climate issues are one of the lowest priorities for a government. Sure, we want clean air air and clean water but even Donald Trump talks about this. As such it was fantastic to see that one of the main debates was on the climate.

As such it was fantastic that the majority of political parties in the UK sent their leaders to sell their climate policies to the British public.

What should we make of the fact that 2 of the parties failed to turn up. It is true that the Conservatives sent Michael Gove in Boris Johnson’s place, however what does it say about the most likely candidate for Prime Minister that he did not think it was worth turning up and debating with other leaders on climate change.

We live on an island, if as we are currently heading we hit the temperature rises that are predicted by the end of the century then significant parts of the United Kingdom will be underwater. A collapse of the the ice shelves in the Antarctic that hold the ice in the middle, could mean Rises in sea level above 10 m worldwide.

I have been thoroughly frustrated by the conservative party’s record over the last decade in power. For those who read here regularly you have seen occasional articles on this subject in question. From scrapping the the solar subsidies ( apparently because they were too expensive) to continue to give subsidies to fossil fuel companies, for instance by only charging 5% VAT on gas for heating, amounting to over 10 billion pound a year ( I hope I the people see the contradiction here as well).

In my opinion, Boris Johnson’s cowardice yesterday evening in failing to turn up and have his parties environmental policies debated, simply says that he is not a suitable Prime Minister. It is unfortunate with the current standing of the Labour Party that the Conservative Party are a long way in the lead. 

I myself live in one of the safest conservative seats in the country. I have proved to be a bit of a political butterfly, unwilling to Settle on one particular party for the simple reason that no party is satisfactory when it comes to the environment ( the greens may indeed come closest but they have some odd views on other areas such as the monarchy, which relegates them in the majority of the country to protest vote).

Given the incredible importance of making dramatic improvements to to our carbon emissions over the course of the next Parliament or two,  Brexit is a distraction we’re dont need- when we should be concentrating on making sure that the environment we leave for our children and grandchildren is hospitable, we’re going to spend the majority of the next decade trying to sort out the mess caused by brexit.

I know some would argue therefore for that we should all vote conservative give them a huge majority and allow them to push through whatever they like like leaving us a clean slate to get to work on the environment. However there are still other problems with their position. They are extremely keen to do a trade deal with America, and while it is certainly important for our future prosperity as a country this should not come at any cost. Trump’s government are demanding extraordinary things when it comes to climate and environmental protections: we run the risk of being on the wrong side of History.

It was good to see those leaders who bothered to turn up having a serious debate about climate change and the environment. I certainly hope that some of their policies are able to be put in place whoever wins. My own feeling is that on this occasion both over the climate and Europe we cannot afford a conservative government. With a Coalition of some sort they will have to work together, as such it is worth looking at voting tactically to deny them the ability to go off on their own.

If you wish to have your say either way, and live in the uk the election is today.

The Big Five fossil fuel producers have spent more than 250 million pounds lobbying the European Union since 2010

Divulgação Petrobras / ABr – Agência Brasil

This statistic that has recently been released it is concerning. The view of the public is increasingly behind supporting to do something about global warming, however the money is continuing to support those who want business as usual.

Continue reading “The Big Five fossil fuel producers have spent more than 250 million pounds lobbying the European Union since 2010”