“I’m not looking to put our companies out of business [over CO2 regulation] …. We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had.”
“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy. The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind. I don’t like it, I don’t like it.”
– President Donald Trump, G-20 Summit, Osaka, Japan, June 28, 2019
Chalk up another small victory for the US effort to reset the global agenda on climate change. The anti-growth Malthusians have quite a foe in President Trump, and his forceful consistency just might put the global-government climate crusade out of its misery sooner than otherwise.
Trump refused to sign the G-20 declaration on climate change as written (see below), and he lobbied Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Australia, and Turkey to do likewise. The agree-to-disagree carveout of the G-20 (Section 36), which followed Section 35’s support for the Paris climate accord, read:
The United States reiterates its decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because it disadvantages American workers and taxpayers. The U.S. reaffirms its strong commitment to promoting economic growth, energy security and access, and environmental protection. The U.S.’s balanced approach to energy and environment allows for the delivery of affordable, reliable, and secure energy to all its citizens while utilizing all energy sources and technologies, including clean and advanced fossil fuels and technologies, renewables, and civil nuclear power, while also reducing emissions and promoting economic growth. The United States is a world leader in reducing emissions. U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 14% between 2005 and 2017 even as its economy grew by 19.4% largely due to the development and deployment of innovative energy technologies. The United States remains committed to the development and deployment of advanced technologies to continue to reduce emissions and provide for a cleaner environment.
Note the positive messaging about how the U.S. is reducing real criteria pollutants, not the politically designated pollutant, carbon dioxide (CO2). And “innovative energy technologies” included those within the fossil-fuel family, an important source of real environmental gain.
The Paris climate accord–what climate scientist/activist James Hansen called “a fraud really, a fake”–is in big trouble. Its problems are being papered over at present, but the months ahead will continue to put pressure on the fragile cartel of best-efforts emission reductions for many and specific targets for the rest.
President Trump should be applauded for putting world consumers and taxpayers, not only the U.S., first. And in so doing, Trump and the US are actually advancing the G20 Osaka Leaders’ Declaration (preamble) goal “to create a virtuous cycle of growth by addressing inequalities and realize a society where all individuals can make use of their full potential.”
Appendix
Trump’s informal comments as reported:
I’m not looking to create a standard that is so high that we’re going to lose 20-25 percent of our production. I’m not willing to do that.
We have the cleanest water we’ve ever had, we have the cleanest air—you saw the reports come out recently. We have the cleanest air we’ve ever had. But I’m not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we’ve built up over a long period of time, and what I’ve enhanced and revived.”
“I’m not sure that I agree with certain countries with what they are doing, they are losing a lot of power. I am talking about the powering of a [power] plant.”
“It doesn’t always work with a windmill. When the wind goes off, the plant isn’t working. It doesn’t always work with solar because solar’s just not strong enough, and a lot of them want to go to wind, which has caused a lot of problems.”
“Wind doesn’t work for the most part without subsidy. The United States is paying tremendous amounts of subsidies for wind. I don’t like it, I don’t like it.”
Excellent synthesis. Thank you. When the DOE says grid systems can handle offshore wind and its variability, and President Trump repeatedly questions reliability, we can do the quick test and see who is right. On top of reliability come the corollary questions: impacts on fishing, cable problems increasing yearly, massively expensive on or offshore. Guy Ouellette writes:
“Of some 200 wind energy projects studied in 2007-8 in Europe, 40 percent were ensnared in lawsuits, and 30 percent more faced slowdowns because of local resistance or questioning from nonprofit environmental groups, the association said. It had no figures on how many projects were killed before they got started.”
Even many of the so called green organizations are against wind farms. In addition, they cannot produce electricity competitively and require massive government subsidies for both installation and subsequent operation. Rate payers are hit a double whammy, higher electric rates and higher taxes to pay the subsidies.”
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/04/21/problems-with-offshore-wind-farms-not-worth-it/
Older, but still right on the money.