Carbon Bubble is biting hard now. Cut to the chase at 2:50 in the vid above – the whole idea of Oil stocks as some kind of value proposition is teetering on the brink.


The Norwegian central bank, which runs the country’s sovereign wealth fund – the world’s biggest – has told its government it should dump its shares in oil and gas companies, in a move that could have significant consequences for the sector.

Norges Bank, which manages Norway’s $1tn fund, said ministers should take the step to avoid the fund’s value being hit by a permanent fall in the oil price.

The fund was built on the back of Norway’s hydrocarbon wealth, and around 300bn krone (£27.73bn), or 6%, is invested in oil and gas companies.

The recommendation by Norway’s central bank pushed down shares in European oil companies. Europe’s index of oil and gas shares hit its lowest level since mid-October on the news and was trading down 0.39% by late afternoon.


Read the rest of this entry »


Will 2018 be the Year of EVs?

November 20, 2017

This week saw the rollout of Tesla’s newest Semi-Truck and Roadster offerings.
The Economist has a video with a warts and all look at the inevitable EV revolution.
Challenges galore, but obstacles keep falling.

Here, Dan Kammen of UC Berkeley has some important drill-down perspectives.

Tesla is the glamour company now, but challengers are rising, below. Read the rest of this entry »

Watch this video – trust me, trust me, trust me.

Last week, Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly met to debate how the country could establish itself as a world leader in the fight against climate change. During the gathering, members heard how the nearby European nation of Scotland has managed to get on track to supply 100 percent of its electricity via renewables by 2020.

Over the past fifteen years, Scotland has gone from garnering 10 percent of its electricity from renewables to 60 percent. The country hit its emissions targets for 2020 five years earlier than anticipated, and looks set to preserve that momentum going forward.

Scotland’s transition to renewable energy has been made without any negative impact on the country’s finances – its accomplishments serve to demonstrate that there’s no longer a need to decide between ecological and economic considerations.

Part of its success can be attributed to a focus on making sure that improvements were implemented in a way that had a positive impact regionally, as well as across the whole country. For instance, the government set a target for the construction of 500-megawatts’ worth of locally-owned energy generation plants. This was attained well ahead of time, so the goal has now been increased to 1,000-megawatts’ worth of facilities.

Scotland isn’t the only place looking to end its reliance on fossil fuels. However, most other countries aren’t quite as ambitious in terms of timescale.

In June 2017, an entire province of China was able to run on 100 percent renewable energy for seven days straight. This is part of a wider effort for the company to clean up its act when it comes to the environment.

In the US, California has pledged to make a complete transition to renewable energy by 2045, despite being the third-largest state producer of oil and gas. Similarly, the city of Atlanta expects to end its usage of fossil fuels by 2035.

Roanoke Times (Virginia):

Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google do different things, but the tech giants all have the same goal (aside from, perhaps, world domination).

These energy-hungry companies all want to get 100 percent of their power from renewable sources.

They are all well on their way, too. Read the rest of this entry »



VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – Denying climate change or being indifferent to its effects are “perverse attitudes” that block research and dialogue aimed at protecting the future of the planet, Pope Francis said on Thursday.

Francis, a strong defender of environmental protection, made his comments in a message to ministers meeting in Bonn to work out a rule book for implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to move the world economy off fossil fuels.

“We have to avoid falling into these four perverse attitudes, which certainly do not help honest research and sincere and productive dialogue on building the future of our planet: negation, indifference, resignation and trust in inadequate solutions,” he said.

Francis called climate change “one of the worst phenomena that our humanity is witnessing”.

He praised the Paris accord, which U.S. President Donald Trump said the United States planned to leave, for indicating what he called a “clear path of transition towards a model of economic development with little or no carbon consumption”.

The United States is the only country out of 195 signatories to have announced its intention to withdraw from the accord, which aims to cut emissions blamed for the rise in temperatures.

Trump announced the decision in June shortly after visiting the pope. At the time, a Vatican official said the move was a “slap in the face” for the pope and the Vatican.

Before his election, Trump labeled climate change a “hoax”.


We have the best disasters.

The age of climate consequences is just beginning, and the response is completely inadequate.

Greed and incompetence. Not just for Puerto Ricans anymore.

Dallas Morning News:

WASHINGTON — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and a host of bipartisan congressional lawmakers are slamming the new $44 billion White House disaster relief aid request as “inadequate.”

The request — submitted Friday to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget — is President Donald Trump’s third since Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria hit the Gulf Coast and Caribbean. It would bring the total appropriated for hurricane relief this fall close to $100 billion, but it falls well short of the demands made by officials from Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.

At a news conference, Abbott said he’s still reviewing the White House request but that it appears to be “completely inadequate.” What’s more, Abbott said, it “does not live up” to what Trump has pledged in recovery aid, and he complained that Washington worked faster for victims of Superstorm Sandy than for Harvey.

“The president has told me privately what he said publicly, and that is he wants to be the builder president. The president has said he wants this to be the best recovery from a disaster ever,” Abbott said a news conference in which he announced a $5 billion Harvey-related grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“Hopefully, this is only one of multiple steps along the pathway,” Abbott added of the latest aid request.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican, similarly dismissed the request as “wholly inadequate,” while a host of other Texas lawmakers blasted it as insufficient. Even Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, are criticizing the measure as measly.

CBS Local San Francisco:

The White House Friday sent Congress a $44 billion disaster aid request and it immediately came under attack from California’s two U.S. senators because it does not contain any relief for victims of the wine country wildfires.

In a joint statement, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris called the bill “appalling.”

“It’s appalling the White House is choosing to ignore the victims of California’s wildfires,” the senators said. “The latest disaster supplemental request is a completely inadequate response to all of the recent natural disasters, but it’s particularly egregious that no money was included to help Californians rebuild.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Below, bonus – brilliant “Christmas Carol” for Trump send-up.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Radio lab” style interview with former Cato Institute climate denial hack Jerry Taylor. Now woke.


Older print interview here, I am reposting.

The Intercept:

Sharon Lerner: What did you think when you first encountered the concept of climate change back in the 1990s?

Jerry Taylor: From 1991 through 2000, I was a pretty good warrior on that front. I was absolutely convinced of the case for skepticism with regard to climate science and of the excessive costs of doing much about it even if it were a problem. I used to write skeptic talking points for a living.

SL: What was your turning point?

JT: It started in the early 2000s. I was one of the climate skeptics who do battle on TV and I was doing a show with Joe Romm. On air, I said that, back in 1988, when climate scientist James Hansen testified in front of the Senate, he predicted we’d see a tremendous amount of warming. I argued it’d been more than a decade and we could now see by looking at the temperature record that he wasn’t accurate. After we got done with the program and were back in green room, getting the makeup taken off, Joe said to me, “Did you even read that testimony you’ve just talked about?” And when I told him it had been a while, he said “I’m daring you to go back and double check this.” He told me that some of Hansen’s projections were spot on. So I went back to my office and I re-read Hanson’s testimony. And Joe was correct. So I then I talked to the climate skeptics who had made this argument to me, and it turns out they had done so with full knowledge they were being misleading.

SL: So that was it? You changed your mind?

JT: It was more gradual. After that, I began to do more of that due diligence, and the more I did, the more I found that variations on this story kept arising again and again. Either the explanations for findings were dodgy, sketchy or misleading or the underlying science didn’t hold up. Eventually, I tried to get out of the science narratives that I had been trafficking in and just fell back on the economics. Because you can very well accept that climate change exists and still find arguments against climate action because the costs of doing something are so great.

SL: And the economic case eventually crumbled, too?

JT: The first blow in that argument was offered by my friend Jonathan Adler, who was at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Jon wrote a very interesting paper in which he argued that even if the skeptic narratives are correct, the old narratives I was telling wasn’t an argument against climate action. Just because the costs and the benefits are more or less going to be a wash, he said, that doesn’t mean that the losers in climate change are just going to have to suck it up so Exxon and Koch Industries can make a good chunk of money.

The final blow against my position, which caused me to crumble, was from a fellow named Bob Litterman, who had been the head of risk management at Goldman Sachs. Bob said, “The climate risks aren’t any different from financial risks I had to deal with at Goldman. We don’t know what’s going to happen in any given year in the market. There’s a distribution of possible outcomes. You have to consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes when you make decisions like this.” After he left my office, I said “there’s nothing but rubble here.”

Read the rest of this entry »