It's just to keep natGas prices low in the US until Nov 6th. The rest are lies so disgusting, it lines up well with other features of the Administration.
Veriten had an Aussie guy on their COBT webcast. AUS activists want same ban. (Funny how all these same bad ideas are uniformly spread around the West.....) Said the usual staid Japanese said that if they can't buy their energy from "good" people, they'll be forced to buy it from "bad" ones. (Also pointed out that Japan is very restricted on "renewables" since they don't have much flat land for panels or continental shelf for wind turbines.). This is political prostitution of the worst kind.
RE: the administration's climate impact claim to the LNG terminal pause, and supporting it with new scientific research on the maritime release of GHGs. How realistic is Professor's Howarth's new analysis? Here's a link to his report:
And if this analysis is factual and methods used reasonable, then the good Professor should look at the GHG impact of California's maritime, crude oil imports. A majority from foreign sources that flare, have environmentally damaging drilling and production records, etc. compared to California's well-regulated oil industry. In-state oil production is rapidly declining, largely the result of the State's anti-fossil polices and similar court decisions. After three decades of this, more than half of California's oil consumption comes from foreign sources and about half of that is from Ecuador and Iraq. However, California is still using about the same amount of crude oil. Who is responsible for all the unclaimed GHGs that California has benefited from?
Speaking of insanity, in Roger's home state, The Great Green Lovin' Colorado, rejected Nuclear Power again as clean energy. Completely covered up in the Colorado MSM of course. Wouldn't be good letting the "ignorant" populace know what hypocrites their Demonrat politicians are. "Yep, we're the greenest state, we're the state fighting climate change, yep, believe us, we wouldn't lie, no sirree, bob". "but look at our wind turbines & solar panels, they are very impressive looking".
Another Year, Another Defeat for Nuclear in Colorado, Colonizers Win Once Again, Green Leap Forward:
If the study by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth is still forthcoming how does Piltdown Mann know what it says?
This is the guy who says ocean cycles don’t exist, and he still has influence, on anything.
They are all clearly involved in decision based evidence making. Why would we be surprised.
As to the beneficiaries? Same as who benefited from cancellation of KXL. Primarily Putin’s Russia
Doomberg did a great piece last year on how all Biden policy to date has dramatically benefitted Putin such that Russia is now in the best financial shape it’s been in for years.
Howarth has taken New York State for a ride. I consider hiim the Michael Mann wannabe of methane. The net-zero Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act authors relied on his "expertise" and his irrational obsession with methane figures prominently in the law. We get to use global warming potential of 20 years rather than 100 years because of this character's methane obsession for example. I have seen no indication whatsoever that he has any atmospheric radiation expertise but he has the ears of influential people. The link in your reference to him does not work. Please provide one that works. Thank you
Excellent analysis. Here's another possibility for the LNG pause: turn more of the LNG selling over to Qatar. USA needs a few more Middle Eastern friends these days. Of course, if things get worse in the Red Sea, etc., pause will be paused.
"Taken together, if all U.S. projects in the permitting pipeline are approved, they could lead to 3.9 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is larger than the entire annual emissions of the European Union."
Has anyone bothered to check Jacobsen's and Mann's math? Jacobsen believes the world can be powered by wind, solar and water. The math on that statement has been done, and proven to be wrong; and not just by one, but by many!!! Mann scared algor into believing the hockey stick, by conveniently omitting several million years' of record.
Considering the billions of dollars involved, the foreign policy stakes, and the us employment in the fossil industry, wouldn't it be prudent to check, double check, triple check, then verify independently that the world will end if we keep exporting gas?
Why is it that every time I see Michael Mann's name on something I want to throw up? Never in the history of science has one man done so much damage. I hope he goes down in flame from his current defamation trial.
And how is it that two sophisticated countries, Canada and the US, can be lead by science ignoramus? Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, told the Europeans there was "no business case for LNG exports" - a total lie.
Fortunately, democracy has a way of righting things.
After reading numerous political and economic, not scientific, blogs today on this topic I have reached the conclusion that this move by Biden is merely a cynical, short-term ploy to enhance his reelection chances. His environmental base is furious he has not done more to stop fossil fuel use and development. They are also furious that so many wind and solar projects are either being canceled or are having difficulty getting off the ground. Biden knows that there is plenty of LNG export capacity already developed or underway so that his order does not impact the US ability to meet export commitments to our allies until well past the November election. And when the chickens finally come home to roost Biden will be finished with his second term (if his ploy(s) are successful) and he will no longer care about the consequences his short-term political act may have caused.
I would take the Cynical view, and votes do matter (and I for one would hate to see Biden's opponent win a second term, even in light of the current admin's goofy energy policy positions). I would also suggest that they're Uninformed, but willfully so. Any staff could/should be aware of the DoE's position and there are smart people involved that would know the wisdom of developing the evidence first and then announcing policy changes. But their view is almost certainly that if they don't win a second term they can't do anything so it's the lesser of two evils. I would be mildly, but not totally surprised if this gets rolled back after the election, for whatever stated reason.
Let them burn Coal! https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-at-record-levels-in-2023. US also exports a decent amount of coal. I chalk this up to political calculations, which we will see in all things during this silly season we call the Presidential Election year. The social cost of carbon calculation, if done in this process will be very interesting to watch.
It's just to keep natGas prices low in the US until Nov 6th. The rest are lies so disgusting, it lines up well with other features of the Administration.
Excellent.
Veriten had an Aussie guy on their COBT webcast. AUS activists want same ban. (Funny how all these same bad ideas are uniformly spread around the West.....) Said the usual staid Japanese said that if they can't buy their energy from "good" people, they'll be forced to buy it from "bad" ones. (Also pointed out that Japan is very restricted on "renewables" since they don't have much flat land for panels or continental shelf for wind turbines.). This is political prostitution of the worst kind.
It becomes clearer everyday that China runs the Dimocrat Party.
TDAVISGEO
TDAVISGEO’s Newsletter
RE: the administration's climate impact claim to the LNG terminal pause, and supporting it with new scientific research on the maritime release of GHGs. How realistic is Professor's Howarth's new analysis? Here's a link to his report:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:344e1a3e-f2b5-41d2-8bd2-a48d50f1fc49
And if this analysis is factual and methods used reasonable, then the good Professor should look at the GHG impact of California's maritime, crude oil imports. A majority from foreign sources that flare, have environmentally damaging drilling and production records, etc. compared to California's well-regulated oil industry. In-state oil production is rapidly declining, largely the result of the State's anti-fossil polices and similar court decisions. After three decades of this, more than half of California's oil consumption comes from foreign sources and about half of that is from Ecuador and Iraq. However, California is still using about the same amount of crude oil. Who is responsible for all the unclaimed GHGs that California has benefited from?
Speaking of insanity, in Roger's home state, The Great Green Lovin' Colorado, rejected Nuclear Power again as clean energy. Completely covered up in the Colorado MSM of course. Wouldn't be good letting the "ignorant" populace know what hypocrites their Demonrat politicians are. "Yep, we're the greenest state, we're the state fighting climate change, yep, believe us, we wouldn't lie, no sirree, bob". "but look at our wind turbines & solar panels, they are very impressive looking".
Another Year, Another Defeat for Nuclear in Colorado, Colonizers Win Once Again, Green Leap Forward:
greenleapforward.wtf/p/another-year-another-defeat-for-nuclear
That Iron Law sure is made of Iron, Roger. Excellent read.
If the study by Cornell University climate scientist Robert Howarth is still forthcoming how does Piltdown Mann know what it says?
This is the guy who says ocean cycles don’t exist, and he still has influence, on anything.
They are all clearly involved in decision based evidence making. Why would we be surprised.
As to the beneficiaries? Same as who benefited from cancellation of KXL. Primarily Putin’s Russia
Doomberg did a great piece last year on how all Biden policy to date has dramatically benefitted Putin such that Russia is now in the best financial shape it’s been in for years.
Follow the money?
Howarth has taken New York State for a ride. I consider hiim the Michael Mann wannabe of methane. The net-zero Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act authors relied on his "expertise" and his irrational obsession with methane figures prominently in the law. We get to use global warming potential of 20 years rather than 100 years because of this character's methane obsession for example. I have seen no indication whatsoever that he has any atmospheric radiation expertise but he has the ears of influential people. The link in your reference to him does not work. Please provide one that works. Thank you
Talking of riffs on "if you build it", I like Paul Vixie's version (creator of the Bind DNS server used all over the internet)
“If You Don’t Build It, They Definitely Will Not Come”
Excellent analysis. Here's another possibility for the LNG pause: turn more of the LNG selling over to Qatar. USA needs a few more Middle Eastern friends these days. Of course, if things get worse in the Red Sea, etc., pause will be paused.
"Taken together, if all U.S. projects in the permitting pipeline are approved, they could lead to 3.9 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is larger than the entire annual emissions of the European Union."
Has anyone bothered to check Jacobsen's and Mann's math? Jacobsen believes the world can be powered by wind, solar and water. The math on that statement has been done, and proven to be wrong; and not just by one, but by many!!! Mann scared algor into believing the hockey stick, by conveniently omitting several million years' of record.
Considering the billions of dollars involved, the foreign policy stakes, and the us employment in the fossil industry, wouldn't it be prudent to check, double check, triple check, then verify independently that the world will end if we keep exporting gas?
Or is independent verification too much to ask?
I propose a compromise policy: Continued LNG exports in combination with a global coal exit treaty.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/five-million-preventable-deaths-per
Why is it that every time I see Michael Mann's name on something I want to throw up? Never in the history of science has one man done so much damage. I hope he goes down in flame from his current defamation trial.
And how is it that two sophisticated countries, Canada and the US, can be lead by science ignoramus? Our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, told the Europeans there was "no business case for LNG exports" - a total lie.
Fortunately, democracy has a way of righting things.
After reading numerous political and economic, not scientific, blogs today on this topic I have reached the conclusion that this move by Biden is merely a cynical, short-term ploy to enhance his reelection chances. His environmental base is furious he has not done more to stop fossil fuel use and development. They are also furious that so many wind and solar projects are either being canceled or are having difficulty getting off the ground. Biden knows that there is plenty of LNG export capacity already developed or underway so that his order does not impact the US ability to meet export commitments to our allies until well past the November election. And when the chickens finally come home to roost Biden will be finished with his second term (if his ploy(s) are successful) and he will no longer care about the consequences his short-term political act may have caused.
I would take the Cynical view, and votes do matter (and I for one would hate to see Biden's opponent win a second term, even in light of the current admin's goofy energy policy positions). I would also suggest that they're Uninformed, but willfully so. Any staff could/should be aware of the DoE's position and there are smart people involved that would know the wisdom of developing the evidence first and then announcing policy changes. But their view is almost certainly that if they don't win a second term they can't do anything so it's the lesser of two evils. I would be mildly, but not totally surprised if this gets rolled back after the election, for whatever stated reason.
Let them burn Coal! https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-at-record-levels-in-2023. US also exports a decent amount of coal. I chalk this up to political calculations, which we will see in all things during this silly season we call the Presidential Election year. The social cost of carbon calculation, if done in this process will be very interesting to watch.