The Next Energy Revolution

A great piece, from David G. Victor and Kassia Yanosek, at Foreign Affairs, "The Promise and Peril of High-Tech Innovation":

Three trends are driving the new energy revolution: management, data analytics, and automation. https://t.co/ft3nbboy1O

— Foreign Affairs (@ForeignAffairs) June 18, 2017

The technology revolution has transformed one industry after another, from retail to manufacturing to transportation. Its most far-reaching effects, however, may be playing out in the unlikeliest of places: the traditional industries of oil, gas, and electricity.

Over the past decade, innovation has upended the energy industry. First came the shale revolution. Starting around 2005, companies began to unlock massive new supplies of natural gas, and then oil, from shale basins, thanks to two new technologies: horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (or fracking). Engineers worked out how to drill shafts vertically and then turn their drills sideways to travel along a shale seam; they then blasted the shale with high-pressure water, sand, and chemicals to pry open the rock and allow the hydrocarbons to flow. These technologies have helped drive oil prices down from an all-time high of $145 per barrel in July 2008 to less than a third of that today, and supply has become much more responsive to market conditions, undercutting the ability of OPEC, a group of the world’s major oil-exporting nations, to influence global oil prices.

That was just the beginning. Today, smarter management of complex systems, data analytics, and automation are remaking the industry once again, boosting the productivity and flexibility of energy companies. These changes have begun to transform not only the industries that produce commodities such as oil and gas but also the ways in which companies generate and deliver electric power. A new electricity industry is emerging—one that is more decentralized and consumer-friendly, and able to integrate many different sources of power into highly reliable power grids. In the coming years, these trends are likely to keep energy cheap and plentiful, responsive to market conditions, and more efficient than ever.

But this transition will not be straightforward. It could destabilize countries whose economies depend on revenue from traditional energy sources, such as Russia, the big producers of the Persian Gulf, and Venezuela. It could hurt lower-skilled workers, whose jobs are vulnerable to automation. And cheap fossil fuels will make it harder to achieve the deep cuts in emissions needed to halt global warming...

More.

New Coal Mine Opens in Pennsylvania

From Fox News Insider, via Paul Joseph Watson, on Twitter:

This is why Trump won Pennsylvania. https://t.co/GlrTNT8uxK

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 11, 2017

Belgium Shining Bright from Space

A great piece, which points out Belgium's environmental hypocrisy.

Beautiful photography too. Absolutely astonishing.

At NYT:

A Photo From Space Shows Belgium Shining Bright, and Social Media Lights Up. https://t.co/clqnd3Pe0b

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) May 12, 2017

'Dirty Hippies' No Match for Donald Trump (VIDEO)

At the Rebel, "U.S. grants Keystone XL permit: “Dirty hippies” no match for President Trump."

Donald Trump's Cabinet Picks Are Among the Most Conservative in History

Following-up from a little while ago, "Trump to Make Energy Policy Major Theme of Administration."

Like I said, I'm pleased as punch.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Trump's Cabinet picks are among the most conservative in history. What that means for his campaign promises":

Donald Trump promotes himself as a man divorced from party ideology, a president-elect just as open-minded to input from Al Gore as from Newt Gingrich.

But with his Cabinet nearly complete, he has chosen one of the most consistently conservative domestic policy teams in modern history, setting himself up for hard decisions and potential conflict with some of his supporters when he begins to govern.

The internal conflicts have emerged with nearly every pick.

Trump campaigned against the big banks, then chose a former Goldman Sachs partner, Steven Mnuchin, to run his Treasury Department. He pledged to save Medicare and Social Security, then chose Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), who has advocated sweeping revisions in Medicare and Medicaid, to run Health and Human Services.

Trump has placed the burdens of working people at the top of his agenda, yet chose as Labor secretary an executive, Andrew Puzder, who talked in an interview about the advantages of replacing human workers with machines because they are “always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex, or race discrimination case.”

And even as Trump aides put out word that the president-elect’s daughter Ivanka would be an influential administration voice in favor of curbing global warming, Trump named a man who has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change, Oklahoma Atty. Gen. Scott Pruitt, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

“This is a big mystery to a lot of people, and it’s going to be one of the hardest things about this presidency,” said Elaine Kamarck, a former advisor in the Clinton administration now at the Brookings Institution in Washington, who has written extensively about the inner workings of White Houses.

Trump has so far shown a deftness at drawing attention away from sticky policy debates with bold, attention-grabbing strokes, a tactic that may help him deflect controversies when he moves to the Oval Office. On Monday, he announced he was delaying until next month a news conference at which he had promised to address his business conflicts of interest, then on Tuesday morning, he staged a photo opportunity at Trump Tower with entertainer Kanye West.

He defied some ideologues in his party, and won goodwill from many supporters, by dramatically persuading Carrier Corp. to keep some of the air conditioning company’s manufacturing jobs in Indiana rather than ship them to Mexico.

Despite criticism over singling out an individual company with tax incentives and implicit threats to its government contracting business, Trump was able to use the publicity over the deal to promote a message that workers, particularly those in manufacturing, were at the top of his agenda.

“We are going to see a lot of symbolic politics,” said Lara Brown, a professor of political management at George Washington University. She expects gestures like the Carrier deal to prove effective for some time.

Trump’s supporters, Brown said, are more invested in shaking up the system than a particular policy agenda.

But the splashy moves could wear thin if Trump fails to deliver on signature promises, like a jobs boom...

It's all going to be fine.

I'm sure of it.

But keep reading, in any case.

Trump to Make Energy Policy Major Theme of Administration

I'm pleased as punch with Trump's nominations.

It's absolutely thrilling. I mean, jeez, it's like a policy revolution in the works, about to completely destroy the radical left's anti-everything regulatory regime.

I can't wait to get cracking!

At IBD, "Can Trump's Energy-Savvy Cabinet 'Make American Energy Great Again'?":

With a spate of major Cabinet picks, President-elect Donald Trump has made one thing abundantly clear: He intends to make reform of U.S. energy policy a major theme of his administration.

On Tuesday word leaked out that Trump would choose former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as his new Energy Secretary.

Perry, whose economic success as Texas governor speaks for itself, is a terrific pick who'll need very little on-the-job training about what plentiful energy means to real people in the real economy — especially when compared to President Obama's energy secretaries, the UC Berkeley physicist Stephen Chu, who focused largely on global warming and pushing the idea of a "global glucose economy" based on energy from tropical plants, and physicist Ernest Moniz, who spent most of his time on helping push the disastrous Iran nuclear deal.

Even so, the media had a field day with the Perry pick. Why? In a 2011 presidential debate, he vowed to get rid of three government agencies if elected. One was Commerce, one was Education, and the third ... he couldn't remember. Oops! It was Energy.

Yes, ironic and good for a laugh. But also irrelevant. Because Perry, as the top executive in the nation's No. 1 energy state, knows the energy industry and energy regulation backward and forward. And just because he would eliminate the Energy Department — for the record, so would we, because it's utterly useless — he will be a wise and steady leader when it comes to deregulating the overly regulated energy industry.

Our hope is that he will free up federal land for more energy exploration and drilling, but also find ways to ease burdens on energy users and producers. We would, for instance, like to see the anti-business, anti-industry, anti-consumer, anti-energy Clean Power Plan done away with entirely. If he does all that, the energy and fracking revolutions will continue — bringing decades if not centuries of relatively cheap energy to fuel U.S. growth.

But Trump's energy Cabinet isn't just about Perry...

Keep reading.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers Picked for Secretary of the Interior

She's a great lady!

And she wants to drill, baby, drill!

At the Los Angeles Times, "Trump said to pick drilling advocate Cathy McMorris Rodgers for Interior."

And at Bloomberg, "Trump Said to Offer Cathy McMorris Rodgers Post to Head Interior":

President-elect Donald Trump has asked Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the highest-ranking Republican woman in the U.S. House, to be his Interior secretary, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

In picking the six-term Republican from Washington state, Trump would be putting a Westerner who has favored opening more areas to oil and gas development in charge of the agency that makes those decisions for 20 percent of the U.S. McMorris Rodgers, 47, has been House Republican Conference chairwoman, the fourth-ranking party leader, since 2013.

Her voting record in Congress has gained low ratings from environmental and conservation organizations, though her campaign website promotes her role helping to write bipartisan legislation passed in December to modernize the U.S. energy system, including by speeding hydropower development, which is important to her state.

She supported a provision ending the 1975 ban on the export of U.S. oil, voted to allow Indian tribes to use biomass as a stable energy source, and backed a bill rejecting an expanded definition of “navigable waters” under the Clean Water Act. She also helped write legislation on funding for wildfire disasters.

Even so, the League of Conservation Voters gave McMorris Rodgers a zero score in the group’s 100-point National Environmental Scorecard reflecting votes in 2015. Her lifetime pro-environment score is 4 percent with the group, which bases its findings on lawmakers’ votes on the group’s top issues including energy, global warming, public health, public lands and wildlife conservation, and spending for environmental programs. The average U.S. House score in the group’s ratings for all House members was 41 percent.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil CEO, Expected as Nominee for Secretary of State

Collectivist heads will explode.

At NYT

Rex Tillerson, Exxon Chief, Is Expected to Be Pick for Secretary of State https://t.co/eH09ri5FKO

— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) December 10, 2016

And at WSJ:

Exxon’s Rex Tillerson is top candidate for secretary of state https://t.co/bcmujkGsYi

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 9, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump is expected to nominate Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state, a transition official said Saturday, a selection that would reach outside the traditional foreign policy establishment to elevate a global business deal-maker.

Mr. Trump hasn't yet made a final decision, the official said, but the president-elect heaped praise on Mr. Tillerson in an interview released Saturday.

“He’s more than a business executive; he’s a world-class player,’’ Mr. Trump told Fox News in the interview, to be broadcast Sunday. “He’s in charge of I guess the largest company in the world.”

Mr. Trump called it “a great advantage” that Mr. Tillerson already knows “many of the players,” noting that he does “massive deals in Russia.”

Those deals would be certain to come under scrutiny in confirmation hearings before the Senate. A number of Republicans have urged Mr. Trump to be wary of Russia, warning that it is trying to expand its influence in ways that run counter to U.S. interests in places such as Ukraine and Syria.

The nomination would also put Mr. Trump’s intentions toward Russia in the spotlight just as controversy is intensifying over reports that the Central Intelligence Agency has concluded that a Russian-led hacking effort of U.S. email accounts was intended to boost Mr. Trump’s election chances.

Mr. Tillerson, 64 years old, met privately with Mr. Trump on Saturday, four days after their first meeting.

Among those considered for the post, Mr. Tillerson has perhaps the closest ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin, having negotiated a 2011 energy partnership deal with Russia that Mr. Putin said could eventually be worth as much as $500 billion. In 2012, the Kremlin bestowed the country’s Order of Friendship decoration on Mr. Tillerson.

This pre-existing relationship with Mr. Putin complements Mr. Trump’s push to improve U.S.-Russia ties.

Since Mr. Trump began vetting candidates for secretary of state, Mr. Tillerson’s stock has climbed steadily. He moved ahead of better-known hopefuls with established political credentials—including 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney —who had multiple conversations with Mr. Trump about the job. Mr. Tillerson is viewed by some of Mr. Trump’s advisers as a mold-breaking pick who would bring an executive’s experience to the diplomatic role, said a person involved in the process.

Tapping Mr. Tillerson for the job would be a “Trumpian” move, the transition official said.

Mr. Trump is expected to make a formal announcement about his State Department pick in the coming days.

An Exxon spokesman declined to comment.

Mr. Trump said in a statement on Friday that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani had taken himself out of the running for the diplomatic job and other administration posts late last month.


With Mr. Trump’s decision not yet final, other candidates who remain in the running, apart from Mr. Romney, are former Central Intelligence Agency director David Petraeus, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and U.S. Sen. Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), people familiar with the matter said.

If Mr. Trump selects Mr. Tillerson, it would add a seasoned business executive to a team that already includes three retired generals. As Exxon’s CEO since 2006, Mr. Tillerson could leverage existing relationships with numerous world leaders.

The Environmental Crowd Knows No Compromise

It's not just the environmentalists (with an emphasis on "mental").

Leftists across the board are fanatical campaigners who see their cause as giving them unlimited license in pursuit of the agenda. We've seen this over the last few years on homosexual rights to Black Lives Matter.

But yeah, enviros are certainly overrepresented with regressive nutjobs.

From Rex Murphy, at Toronto's National Post:

The environmental protesters who are determined to throttle Alberta’s oil industry are so invested in the narrow, regressive world of their own doom-laden vision of the future, and the fanatic, narcissistic righteousness that is the hallmark of that vision, that they see themselves as having a licence to to do just about anything, no matter how morally reprehensible, in the pursuit of their cause.

Civilized debate, respect for one’s opponents, listening to differing opinions and good manners: these are the practices and mores of every other social and political exchange, and are necessary for reasoned debate to take place in a democratic society. Yet the anti-pipeline zealots seems to think that these standards don’t apply to them.

Witness that gruesome, arrogant invasion of the National Energy Board (NEB) hearing into the Energy East pipeline in Montreal this week. Three — just three — typically overzealous pipeline justice warriors flamed into the hearing room on Monday, screaming, “It has to stay in the ground.” One of them charged the panel members sitting at the front of the room, forcing the RCMP to subdue and shackle the bellicose buffoon. It was, of course, a stunt — precisely the kind of stunt that passes for protest these days, whenever the save-the-planet gang smells a camera in the distance, a headline in the making or an opportunity derail any legitimate airing of a contentious public issue.

They were only three protesters. But these three hooligans are a perfect example of the holier-than-thou mentality the pervades the modern environmental movement. Storm a meeting, scream slogans, insult the industry, play the victim, taunt the police, harass, intimidate and act like a thug — you may call it protesting if you wish, but bullying and boorishness are far closer to the mark...

RTWT.

Hat Tip: BCF.

'Throughout his career, [Governor Jerry] Brown has fostered policies that have contributed to the regulatory quagmire largely responsible for helping drive house values in California up more than three times the national rate in the last half century...'

It's Joel Kotkin, at the New Geography, "JERRY BROWN’S HOUSING HYPOCRISY" (via Instapundit).

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant to Shut Down

Instapundit had this yesterday, "IF YOU DON’T SUPPORT NUCLEAR POWER, YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT CARBON EMISSIONS: Are Greens Coming Around To Nuclear Power?"

Well, if the greens are coming around, they're not around California.

See the Los Angeles Times, "PG&E to close Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plant":

One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.

The decision announced Tuesday by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to close its beleaguered Diablo Canyon nuclear plant within the next decade runs counter to the nuclear industry’s arguments that curbing carbon emissions and combating climate change require use of nuclear power, which generates the most electricity without harmful emissions.

Instead, PG&E joined with longtime adversaries such as the Friends of the Earth environmental group to craft a deal that will bring the company closer to the mandate that 50% of California’s electricity generation come from renewable energy sources by 2030.

PG&E’s agreement will close the book on the state’s history as a nuclear pioneer, but adds to its clean energy reputation. California already leads the nation by far in use of solar energy generated by rooftop panels and by sprawling power arrays in the desert.

“California is already a leader in curtailing greenhouse gases,” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Now they’re saying they can go even further. That’s potentially a model for other situations.”

Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.

The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.

The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began...

More.

Plus, "It'll take time — and $3.8 billion — to shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant."

RELATED: From Joel Kotkin, at the O.C. Register, "Climate justice: California's state religion."

Gary Sernovitz, The Green and the Black

I love this.

The guy's a leftist.

At Amazon, The Green and the Black: The Complete Story of the Shale Revolution, the Fight over Fracking, and the Future of Energy.

Gary Sernovitz leads a double life. A typical New York liberal, he is also an oilman - a fact his left-leaning friends let slide until the word "fracking" entered popular parlance. "How can you frack?" they suddenly demanded, aghast. But for Sernovitz, the real question is, "What happens if we don't?"

Fracking has become a four-letter word to environmentalists. But most people don't know what it means. In his fast-paced, funny, and lively book, Sernovitz explains the reality of fracking: what it is, how it can be made safer, and how the oil business works.

He also tells the bigger story. Fracking was just one part of a shale revolution that shocked our assumptions about fueling America's future. The revolution has transformed the world with consequences for the oil industry, investors, environmentalists, political leaders, and anyone who lives in areas shaped by the shales, uses fossil fuels, or cares about the climate - in short, everyone. Thanks to American engineers' oilfield innovations, the United States is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions, has sparked a potential manufacturing renaissance, and may soon eliminate its dependence on foreign energy. Once again the largest oil and gas producer in the world, America has altered its balance of power with Russia and the Middle East.

Yet the shale revolution has also caused local disruptions and pollution. It has prolonged the world's use of fossil fuels. Is there any way to reconcile the costs with the benefits of fracking?

More.

Earth Hour Celebrates Ignorance, Poverty, and Backwardness [REPOST]

From last year, a repost:

Most excellent.

From Professor Mark Perry, at AEI:

In 2009, Canadian economist Ross McKitrick was asked by a journalist for his thoughts on the importance of the annual one-hour event in energy self-flagellation and green nitwitery known as Earth Hour, which takes place today, March 28, at 8:30 p.m. Here is his excellent response (my emphasis)...

Keep reading.

Paris Climate of Conformity

From the editors, at the Wall Street Journal:

The moment to be wariest of political enthusiasms is precisely when elite opinion is all lined up on one side. So it is with the weekend agreement out of Paris on climate policy, which President Obama declared with his familiar modesty “can be a turning point for the world” and is “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”

Forgive us for looking through the legacy smoke, but if climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it. What will help is human invention and the entrepreneurial spirit. To the extent the Paris accord increases political control over human and natural resources, it will make the world poorer and technological progress less likely.

***
The climate confab’s self-described political success is rooted in a conceit and a bribe. The conceit is that the terms of the agreement will have some tangible impact on global temperatures. The big breakthrough is supposed to be that for the first time developing and developed countries have committed to reducing carbon emissions. But the commitments by these nations are voluntary with no enforcement mechanism.

China (the No. 1 CO2 emitter) and India (No. 3 after the U.S.) have made commitments that they may or may not honor, depending on whether they can meet them without interfering with economic growth. If the choice is lifting millions out of poverty or reducing CO2, poverty reduction will prevail—as it should.

No less than the supposedly true global-warming believers of Europe are also happy about voluntary commitments because Paris liberates them from the binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Germany’s high energy costs in particular have been driving companies offshore thanks to its renewable energy costs and mandates.

But no one is happier than President Obama, who would have to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification. As we have learned from the Iran nuclear deal and so much else, Mr. Obama is not into winning democratic consent for his policy dreams. Mr. Obama plans to use Paris as a stick to beat Republicans even as he ducks a vote in Congress. We doubt the Paris climate deal would get 40 Senate votes once Democrats in Ohio, Colorado or North Dakota were forced to debate the costs.

Mr. Obama’s U.S. CO2-reduction targets are fanciful in any case, short of a major technological breakthrough. The President promises that the U.S. will reduce carbon emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025, but the specific means he has proposed to get there would only yield about half that. And that’s assuming none of Mr. Obama’s unilateral regulatory policies are declared illegal by U.S. courts.

As for the bribe, rich countries in Paris bought the cooperation of the developing world by promising to send $100 billion a year in climate aid. So the governments of the West are now going to dun their taxpayers to transfer money to the clean and green governments run by the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. We can’t wait to see New York’s Chuck Schumer make the case on the Senate floor for American aid to China so it can become more energy efficient and economically competitive...

Lol.

The editors better not talk too much sense. They might get attacked as racist, heh.

Still more.

Climate Fanaticism is Sponsored by the Students' Unions

This is from Toronto's Financial Post (via Blazing Cat Fur):

Engage in a discussion with university students or peruse the social media pages they stare at on their devices, and it quickly becomes evident that climate change is the political issue youth are most passionate about. University campuses are home to a sizable contingent of climate justice activists, who proclaim loudly that climate catastrophe is imminent unless we cripple the fossil fuel industry and end capitalism.

Much of the climate fanaticism is sponsored by the students’ unions. There are campaigns to ban the sale and distribution of plastic water bottles on at least two dozen campuses in Canada. The plastic bottle ban is supported by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), which claims that “communities, not corporations, must control water resources and services.” Evidently, the exchange of money for water is so offensive to their socialist sensitivities that it must be purged from campuses. Surely it won’t be long before students’ unions are setting up “safe spaces” students can retreat to when they feel “triggered” by the sight of plastic bottles.

In addition to the bottle ban, there is a strong and growing movement on campuses – also organized in part by the CFS – lobbying for universities to divest from fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry “is a rogue industry and it’s immoral for our colleges to continue investing in it,” claims the CFS. According to them, fossil fuel companies are “spending millions of dollars to corrupt our political process,” they are “profiting while our children and communities pay the price” and “their greed for profit threatens the entire planet.” All that’s left is for the CFS to launch a campaign to have the scientist-muzzling, climate-denying oil puppet Stephen Harper deported for setting Canada on the path to Armageddon...

Keep reading.

China Chokes on Smog as World Climate Change Talks Begin in Paris (VIDEO)

China just released some catastrophic report on the coming climate change apocalypse.

See, the Boston Globe, "Chinese assessment of climate change depicts grim scenarios."

But I think the Chinese should worry about their own backyard --- and refrain from lecturing the international community about catastrophic scenarios --- considering the literally unlivable conditions in Beijing, and I suspect the other major Chinese urban centers.

Watch this mind-boggling report from Beijing just today, from Seth Doane, at CBS News This Morning:

Developing Countries Announce 'Global Solar Alliance' to Combat Climate Change

Solar energy accounts for about 1 percent of global energy supply, so India's Narendra Modi has his work cut out for him.

At the Guardian UK, "India unveils global solar alliance of 120 countries at Paris climate summit":

India’s prime minister has launched an international solar alliance of over 120 countries with the French president, François Hollande, at the Paris COP21 climate summit.

Narendra Modi told a press conference that as fossil fuels put the planet in peril, hopes for future prosperity in the developing world now rest on bold initiatives.

“Solar technology is evolving, costs are coming down and grid connectivity is improving,” he said. “The dream of universal access to clean energy is becoming more real. This will be the foundation of the new economy of the new century.”

Modi described the solar alliance as “the sunrise of new hope, not just for clean energy but for villages and homes still in darkness, for mornings and evening filled with a clear view of the glory of the sun”.

Earlier, France’s climate change ambassador, Laurence Tubiana, had called the group “a true game-changer”.

While signatory nations mostly hail from the tropics, several European countries are also on board with the initiative, including France.

Hollande described the project as climate justice in action, mobilising public finance from richer states to help deliver universal energy access.

“What we are putting in place is an avant garde of countries that believe in renewable energies,” he told a press conference in Paris. “What we are showing here is an illustration of the future Paris accord, as this initiative gives meaning to sharing technology and mobilising financial resources in an example of what we wish to do in the course of the climate conference.”

The Indian government is investing an initial $30m (£20m) in setting up the alliance’s headquarters in India. The eventual goal is to raise $400m from membership fees, and international agencies.

Companies involved in the project include Areva, Engie, Enel, HSBC France and Tata Steel...

Keep reading.

World Leaders in Paris Vow to Overcome Divisions on Climate Change

I'd like to see how they're actually going to overcome these divisions, because any global climate change agreement is going to suffer from a major collective action problem.

At WSJ, "President Barack Obama calls on countries to ‘rise to this moment’":

PARIS—World leaders on Monday vowed to finish a deal to curb greenhouse gases and overcome a thorny divide on financing, as they kicked off international climate talks against a backdrop of heavy security.

President Barack Obama called on governments to develop a long-term framework to cut greenhouse emissions, saying the time is coming when it will be too late. He pledged the U.S. would do its part to slow the warming of the planet, and urged other countries to “rise to this moment.”

“I’ve come here personally as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter to say that the U.S. not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it,” Mr. Obama said.

At a heavily guarded airport complex just two weeks after terrorist attacks killed 130 people, other leaders from Russian President Vladimir Putin to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon underscored the urgency of addressing global warming in the two-week conference, dubbed the Cop 21.

Evidence of a long-standing divide quickly re-emerged. Developing countries said the richest nations that have emitted the most carbon dioxide must do more to finance a transition to greener energy and help prepare poor countries to stave off the early effects of a changing climate.

Developing countries want their highly industrialized peers to make good on pledges to mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private climate financing from 2020 onward. Some officials have warned they won’t support a deal in Paris that doesn’t deliver high levels of funding. Any agreement would require the consent of nearly 200 countries.

To help bridge the divide, several rich countries unveiled programs to boost funding. Germany, Norway and the U.K. said they would provide $1 billion a year until 2020 for payment based on emissions reductions from forests and improved land use.

Mr. Obama and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates unveiled a multibillion-dollar program involving 20 countries to boost green-energy research and development.

Yet another commitment Monday—from Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—would provide $500 million for projects in poorer countries via the World Bank.

Emerging economies made it clear that to conclude a deal in Paris, they want to see more progress in the 2020 goal and perhaps even more funding afterward.

“Developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion each year before 2020 and provide stronger support to developing countries afterwards,” Chinese President Xi Jinping said, adding that Beijing would also help finance poorer countries through its own funding vehicle.

South African President Jacob Zuma said rich countries have a “historic responsibility” to at least meet the $100 billion target.

Just before officials gathered, India slammed an October estimate on how much financing rich countries have provided to poorer countries, saying the “methodologies were inconsistent.” The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which produced the estimate, sees India’s criticism as “misjudged and inaccurate,” according to Simon Buckle, head of climate change at the organization representing highly industrialized countries.

Ahead of the Paris talks, most of the countries involved submitted their own plans for curbing emissions of greenhouse gases linked to climate change or boosting the share of green energy after 2020.

An accord clinched in Paris would codify those national plans, part of an original goal to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels...

Sounds like a pretty sophisticated shakedown scam to me. Jacob Zuma? The guy's a freakin' crook.

But keep reading, in any case.

Scientists Dispute 2-Degree Model Guiding Climate Talks

Well, they're gonna get thrown out of the "tribe."

At WSJ:

The single most important benchmark underpinning this week’s talks in Paris on climate change—two degrees Celsius—has guided climate-treaty discussions for decades, but some scientists question the validity of the target.

Many researchers have argued that a rise in the planet’s average global air temperature of two degrees or more above preindustrial levels would usher in catastrophic climate change. But many others argue that is a somewhat arbitrary threshold based on tenuous research, and therefore an impractical spur to policy action.

“It emerged from a political agenda, not a scientific analysis,” says Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College London. “It’s not a sensible, rational target because the models give you a range of possibilities, not a single answer.”

Policy makers tend to assume the two-degree target expresses a solid scientific view, but it doesn’t. The exhaustive reports published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are considered to be the most comprehensive analysis of the science of global warming. Yet the two-degree limit isn’t mentioned in a single IPCC report.

Still, many scientists are willing to back the goal because they see it as giving policy makers a clear-cut target to shoot at in the fight against global warming...

Okay, so far so good. But then you get this doozy:

Most climatologists agree that the earth is getting warmer and that the emission of greenhouse gases is the main driver of this change. But the question of when a catastrophic tipping point might be reached is up in the air...

Um, greenhouse gases are not the main driver. Frankly, we don't know what the main driver is. It could be anything. We're talking about the whole damned earth and the freakin' solar system. The number of possible variables is staggering.

But Professor Maslin's right: It's a political agenda, not a scientific program.

But keep reading.

Climate Skeptic Judith Curry Says She Was 'Tossed Out of the Tribe...'

Heh.

At Instapundit, "TRIBALISM IS NOT SCIENCE. SO YEAH. ‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed."