Worst Climate Stories of the Week (The Joshua Tree Sessions)

This week, the climate stories hit a distinct theme, much like the seminal U2 album, 1987’s The Joshua Tree. In fact, a story about Joshua Trees inspired this week’s look back at one of the most influential rock albums of all time.

Critics often cite The Joshua Tree as an album that describes two Americas: a nation founded in aspirations, contrasted by the gritty realities of the nation. This week’s stories hit a similar theme, in that the aspirations of the climate movement collide headlong with their realities.

In one climate story, we have actual Joshua trees making the ultimate sacrifice to the Cult of Scientism, in a symbol of what radical environmentalism actually means. Other stories include inconvenient climate data points that don’t advance the proper narrative, green policies causing global warming, states waging lawfare on oil companies, and more green energy failures piling up.

In a surprising twist, our Good Climate News section is vibrant and full this week. One might even say it rattles and hums. You’ll never guess what has happened to oil and gas consumption as the Green New Deal continues apace; another state has scrapped its green policies in the name of basic economics; and this week’s question from Just Facts will blow your mind about who benefits from green energy policies.

The Joshua Tree(s)

According to the Los Angeles Times, “A renewable energy company will soon begin clearing thousands of protected Joshua trees . . . including many thought to be a century old, to make way for a sprawling solar project that will generate power for 180,000 homes in wealthier coastal neighborhoods.” That renewable energy company, Avantus, counts global private equity firm KKR as its largest owner, and will build this new project on formerly worthless desert land. Residents of the tiny towns of Boron and Desert Lake, in Kern County, say their concerns about the destruction of the unique trees, along with habitat for endangered desert tortoises, have gone completely ignored. The state and county approved this destructive project anyway, in order to make enough intermittent electricity for a small city far away. The LA Times calls it a “trade-off” for the environment.

The ultimate sacrifice in the Cult of Scientism.

I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For

Steve Milloy pointed out an inconvenient data point on X/Twitter this week:

“May 2024 was cooler than May 1987 in the US by 0.7°F, despite 37 years of global emissions and much urban heat island warming.” Now, of course, as the alarmists will point out, that is one mere data point cherry picked out of long-term trends. But the fact that it sticks out as such a big anomaly doesn’t look good for the global warming argument. They still haven’t found what they’re looking for—consistent, unassailable data that proves the theory.

Bullet The Blue Sky

You plant a demon seed

Your raise a flower of fire

See them burning crosses

See the flames higher and higher

The Daily Sceptic website wrote about an inconvenient revelation made by NASA in the scientific journal Nature that otherwise escaped the notice of corporate mass media:

The world of climate science is in shock following extraordinary findings from a team of high-powered NASA scientists that suggest most of the recent global temperature increases are due to the introduction of draconian fuel shipping regulations designed to help prevent global warming. The fantasy world of Net Zero is of course full of unintended consequences, but it is claimed that the abrupt 80% cut in sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping in 2020 has accounted for 80% of global warming since the turn of the decade. Although the extra heat is described as “transient”, the warming is extraordinary and is expected to rise during the 2020s at a rate of 0.24°C a decade, 20% higher than the claimed warming trend since 1980.

. . . across the field you see the sky ripped open . . .

Mothers of the Disappeared

In its ever-expanding galaxy of lawfare, the radical left has fully embraced the attack on “fossil fuel” companies. This constitutes a no-holds-barred effort to “disappear” the industry altogether. First, deep blue-green Vermont became the first state to “enact laws requiring oil companies to pay for climate change damage.” That prompted many folks to suggest that oil companies simply stop shipping their product to that state, if they find it so problematic.

Not to be outdone, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked the Department of Justice to “investigate” Big Oil for price fixing and collusion, in what the Wall Street Journal called an “obvious scapegoat for inflation heading into November.”

Meanwhile, blue states and cities continue their all-hands-on-deck legal assault on energy companies, apparently taking a page from their destruction of Big Tobacco in the 1990s. A policy wonk broke it down for the Epoch Times, saying, “These governments are trying to mandate that people use less oil and less natural gas, but people want to heat their homes as much as they want, they want to drive as far as they want. If the state banned the sale of oil, the population would revolt, so this is their backdoor way of trying to impose their will.” The radical environmentalists have conjured up a number for the “damages” caused by Big Oil—a mere $20 trillion since the 1980s.

If they get their way, the legal liability for these made-up damages will destroy every American’s ability to afford energy.

With or Without You

The American consumer has decided to move on, with or without the green energy industry. Regardless of how much the government subsidizes it. Even the big companies that benefit from governmental largesse in their green energy investments have had enough. Shell Oil made huge investments in offshore wind, for instance. But they announced at the end of May they would abandon those projects and lay off most of that workforce. European windmill maker Siemens cut 15 percent of its global staff. Meanwhile a study indicated a the offshore wind industry will likely deliver less than three gigawatts of new electricity generation by 2030, far below its targets.

Ok, now for some good news.

Where the Streets Have No Name

I want to run, I want to hide

I want to tear down the walls that hold me inside

And the best way to do that? Hop in your car, fill it up with octane, and drive wherever you want. Freedom, baby. Seems many Americans agree with that sentiment, as fossil fuel consumption has steadily grown, despite the push for alternative energy. A Stanford professor posted on Facebook:

Despite all the political and anti-carbon fuss, a transition away from fossil fuels has not begun. Fossil fuels today (coal, oil and gas) supply two-thirds of global energy demand. All major sectors of the global economy rely overwhelmingly on fossil fuels for energy (95% in transportation). Today, demand for coal and oil remains steady while demand for natural gas is growing.

Oil and gas electricity plants increased 13 percent last year. Gas transmission pipelines have grown all over the world. And, significant new LNG exports will come online across the globe by later this decade (despite the Biden administration “pausing” them in the U.S.). All good news for those who cherish freedom and inexpensive energy.

While “fossil fuels” continue to grow, more states have decided to abandon green mandates. Florida led the way a few months ago. Now, Virginia has gotten into the act.

Finally, good news in the form of someone seeing right through the climate and green energy scam. One of the questions of the day this week from our friends at Just Facts addressed green energy. The results may shock you:

Your answer is correct.

Who receives most of the financial benefits from “green energy” subsidies?

Correct Answer

Corporations

Correct Answer Rate 99%

Tell Me More

As detailed in scholarly publications like the encyclopedia “Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,” the financial benefits of “green energy” subsidies “largely accrue to the owners of capital,” or corporations. This is because: (1) “Energy development,” whether “green or fossil fuels,” is “capital-intensive,” which means it uses much more materials and equipment than human labor. (2) Growth in “the green jobs sector does not necessarily imply net job creation” since it reduces the jobs “that would have been produced from fossil fuels,” and thus, “net job creation may be zero (or negative).” (3) Consumers suffer because green energy subsidies promote “inefficient technologies that are more costly,” and this reduces people’s standards of living. Some forms of green energy have environmental benefits, but these are often more uncertain and less favorable than proponents of green energy make them out to be.

Documentation

Green Jobs
Energy Economics
Green Energy Poverty
Energy Environmental Impacts
Solar Environmental Effects