Deindustrialization, Degrowth and Climate Alarmism

I originally posted this on Feb. 27, 2016: Yesterday, I attended a forum on " Making Renewable Energy a Vehicle for Sustained Inclusive Growth ” held at the International Finance Corporation (IFC, part of the WB Group), Bonifacio Global City, Taguig. The event was organized by the UPLB-CEMAFI. My friend Ozone who is a UPLB Economics alumni tagged me along. They keynote speaker was Sen. Loren Legarda, a known environmentalist. She gave a litany of the threats of man-made climate change, the evils of coal power and the hosanna of renewables. During the open forum, I was the first to comment. I mentioned the following: 1. Demonizing coal power and glamorizing wind, solar, other new renewables to replace coal is unrealistic. At the Meralco generation charge latest data, from wind-solar is zero, about 5% from WESM, the balance of around 95 % is from nat gas, coal, diesel power plants. At the DOE data as of the1st half 2015 in Luzon grid, about 51% of actual electricity production is fr

I originally posted this in February 06, 2016: Aside from Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Oxfam and other big environmental NGOs, one prominent anti-coal (and anti-fossil fuels, anti-mining, anti-...) crusader to "save the planet" is Atty. Tony la Vina, outgoing Dean of the Ateneo School of Government.  In his 3 recent columns (January 16, January 26, February 06, 2016) in The Standard, he articulated various anti-coal alarmism claims, below. I added some data and 2 articles from WUWT by Eric Worral.  The various "planet saviours" celebrated big time last December during the UN FCCC's COP 21 in Paris, saying they signed a deal that will further limit fossil fuels like coal. But look at the chart -- coal power is projected to experience the biggest rise and share to total global energy use. See WUWT,  Is our certain fate a coal-burning climate apocalypse? No!  July 21, 2015. In Tony LV's article today in The Standard,  Coal is not least costly technolo

From  http://wattsupwiththat.com/  by Willis Eschenbach,  Thirty Years of Subsidies , November 5, 2015. He pointed at the US federal government energy subsidies -- in the US alone (EU, Canada, Japan, etc. not included), in 2013 alone (previous years not included). Subsidies to coal + nat gas + nuke = $5.1 billion. Subsidies to all renewables including biofuels = $15.0 billion.   Of which for solar and wind alone = $11.3 billion.  Wow. Source:  http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ The above subsidies to renewables also do NOT include: -- subsidies by state and city governments, that's by the federal government alone; -- subsidies via "renewable energy mandates" or mandatory use of renewables even if cheaper energy from non-renewables are available; -- implicit subsidies via cap-and-trade, carbon taxes to fossil fuels. So is the US and the rest of the world shifting more to solar and wind because of those direct and indirect subsidies for them, vs. taxes and penalt

The Washington Post ran a story last October 12, 2015,  As appetite for electricity soars, the world keeps turning to coal . It is a climate alarmist story and yet the authors recognize that as of 2012, the world -- rich, middle income and poor countries combined -- was dependent on 68% fossil fuels (coal + natural gas + oil) for their electricity needs. The 21% renewables are largely "old renewables" like big hydro and geothermal. The "new renewables" like wind and solar should contribute something like 2-4% of total. In terms of total global electricity output from 1980 to 2012 (32 years), the biggest increase in GWh are (1) coal with 6.1 M and (2) natural gas with 4.1 M. Percentage wise, biggest increase were recorded by nat gas and nuke. So although it is a climate alarmism article, there is honesty in recognizing that if people want more and stable electricity, fossil fuels are inevitable and reliable energy sources. From a nice US Chamber of Commerce article l

On  May 31, 2011 , I made these observations: Kyotoism, the philosophy that the Kyoto Protocol (KP) of binding carbon emission reduction by many rich and industrialized countries will help "save the planet", is dying. KP was adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and became binding by 2005. It will expire by the end of 2012. Thus, the rush by the UN and many governments to have a new binding agreement that will supplant KP by 2013. The point organization to prolong climate alarmism -- more environmental regulations, more carbon and energy taxation, more climate bureaucracies and frequent global climate meetings/junkets, more climate loans -- is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC). Thus, there have been huge global climate meetings called the Conference of Parties (COP) in the past, particularly the COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in December 2009, then the COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010. The next COP meeting will be in Durban, South Africa, this coming

Interview at Sonshine Radio, DZAR 1026 These are my answers to the guide questions for a live interview on “ECO-Hour episode,” DZAR 1026 Sonshine Radio Manila, Aug. 8, 2015,  hosted by Jomel and Rascille Laranas. Climate alarmism vs climate realities     1.         What is your reaction on the research which said that 72% of Filipinos are very concerned about climate change? Are you one of the 72%? Why or Why not? à  Expected. Many Filipinos and people in the world are stilled hoodwinked by the climate alarmism movement. 2.         Should climate change or global warming be a cause of alarm among us? Or is the media projecting it in a way that will somehow threaten us or push us to action? Can we say that ‘climate change is nothing but a lie’? à  No.CC and GW are true, they are not lies, but they are cyclical and natura. What is a big lie is the adjective “man-made” and forgetting or deliberately, explicitly removing “nature-made.” Source: Dr. Roy Spencer,  Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate

Two chilling news from  No Tricks Zone  about environmental militance and deception  in German.The  first article  was published on May 26, 2015, and the  second  article  was posted on March 21, 2014. The first paper is an example of "regulatory capture", wind lobbyists writing the renewables cronyism law in one state in Germany. "The FDP Free Democrats accused Wenzel of having parts of the 79-page draft legislation “dictated to him by the wind industry.”   Bild quotes Free Democrat Dr. Gero Hocker, an environment expert:    "The Environment Minister must concede that the wind lobby took over the job of drafting the law. That’s an outrage!”" Good work, FDP. Fiscalize the green zealots mainly responsible for ever-rising energy prices in Germany. From the second article, FNF's website, Liberal, was also quoted saying "The proposed law by Environment Senator Joachim Lohse foresees a system of monitoring that allows for detection of violations and punishm

From  mirror.co.uk , “However, I want to make it clear that if there is a Conservative Government in place we will remove all subsidy for on-shore wind and local people should have a greater say. “Frankly I think we have got enough on-shore wind and we have enough to be going on with, almost 10 per cent of our electricity needs, and I think we should give local people a say if they want to block these sorts of projects. “The only way to stop more on-shore wind is to vote Conservative there is no other party with this policy. We are saying very clearly we would remove the subsidy and give local people the power to say yes or no."  -- David Cameron during the campaign period. From  countytimes.co.uk/  below. One day before the UK elections 2015, some greens were praising Ed Milliband as "A climate change champion". These greens, they hated Cameron? From  Climate Progress  above, “Milibrand’s Labour party is calling for a policy to reduce carbon emissions from electricity g

* Ny article for  the  March 2015 issue of  Business 360 , a monthly magazine published  in  Kathmandu, Nepal. ---------- Electricity and Development When I was in Nepal for  one week in January this year, the lack of electricity was among  the most prominent issues that I  observed. Many road intersections have no  stoplights, all hotels have generator sets, many streets are dark at night, and so on. The business potentials of Nepal are huge, with its unique geography and mountains tourism, and its young and big population. The need for more stable supply of electricity is evident. Economies that use more machines and automation that run on extensive electricity have higher labor productivity and are generally richer. Table 1.  Electric power consumption, kWh per capita Source: ADB, Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2014. See the big jump in power use in just 21 years by Vietnam (10.9x increase), China (6.4x), Bangladesh (5.4x), Maldives (4.6x), Indonesia (4.1x) and Thailand (3.

* Originally posted on Nov. 21, 2015. I was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, last Sunday-Tuesday, for the IPRI 2015 launching + other visits arranged by IDEAS and SEANET. It was my second visit in KL this year, I was there last April for another SEANET event. My 5+pm return MAS flight to Manila (arrival should have been 9:20pm) on Tuesday was cancelled, should be due to additional APEC security measures in Manila. I needed to go back home, so IDEAS got a new ticket for me, KL-SG-Mla via SG Air. Left KL Tuesday at 9:45pm, left SG at 12:20am, Manila by 4:30am. So, I was able to see KL and suburbs at night from the air as I took the window seat. Again, like what I saw in Thailand last month when I arrived Bangkok at midnight (see  Thailand's bright nights and nat gas power ), Malaysia has a wide, huge area of well-lighted roads, houses and buildings. This photo I got from the web, not from my camera. It shows KL center and suburbs. The dark areas are the many urban forest in KL. The bright