India To Double Coal Production By 2020

China coalPrime Minister Narendra Modi’s government aims to double Indian coal production to 1.5 billion tons by 2020. The Modi government, which came to power in May last year, is desperate to increase coal production to facilitate economic growth. The International Energy Exchange projects annual coal consumption in India to grow by 177 million tons, or an average 5% a year, through 2019. –Rosemary Marandi and Kiran Sharma, Nikkei Asian Review, 3 April 2015

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signaled on Monday he would not bow to foreign pressure to commit to cuts in carbon emissions, instead pledging to use more clean energy and traditional methods to lead the fight against climate change. The Indian government has said it needs to emit more to industrialize and lift millions out of poverty. Reuters, 6 April 2015

Hot on the heels of his meaningless “climate agreement” with China, and being made a fool of by India, it is now the turn of Putin to wrap Obama around his little finger. According to the official CDIAC data, Russian emissions fell from 643MtC in 1990 to 495MtC in 2013. In other words, Russian emissions are currently already down to 77% of 1990 levels. Therefore, under Putin’s proposal, the best he is offering is to reduce by a further 2% to 7% of 1990 emissions. When the forest fudge factor is accounted for, it is quite likely that Russian emissions won’t fall at all. In reality, Putin’s offer is not a deal at all, just smoke and mirrors. –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That, 2 April 2015

These climate models are excellent tools for understanding climate, but they are very bad tools for predicting climate. The reason is that they are models that have very few of the factors that may be important, so you can vary one thing at a time to see what happens. But there is a whole lot of things that they leave out. The real world is far more complicated than the models. –Freeman Dyson, Vancouver Sun, 6 April 2015

The government executive in charge of attracting investors to Britain’s struggling nuclear industry has been replaced by an animal health expert. Hergen Haye’s departure from the Office for Nuclear Development will add to the perception that the Department of Energy & Climate Change has fallen into disarray at a crucial time. Speculation is growing that energy department’s days of independence could be numbered. A government source said that if David Cameron is re-elected, he is likely to fold it into the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, where the government has more staff with commercial experience. –John Collingridge and Danny Fortson, The Sunday Times, 5 April 2015

The National Trust was last night warned not to meddle in politics after it vowed to step up attempts to tackle climate change. Critics said the charity risked damaging its popularity by getting mired in a debate that bitterly divides politicians, economists and the public. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum – a think-tank which is sceptical of the extent of climate change – added: ‘The National Trust risks alienating a lot of its members over this issue. ‘Why have they come out now after 20 years of debate about climate change? It is a very popular organisation and I fear that this step will cause lots of trouble with its membership. This is a token gesture that will not change anything in terms of policy.’ –Ben Spencer, Daily Mail, 6 April 2015

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote] ‘Why have they come out now after 20 years of debate about climate change?[/quote]

    [i][b]What?! [/b][/i]

    There has been maybe [i]three hours[/i] of climate change debate, because the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry, as a rule, [i]refuses[/i] to debate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    There is no debate because” the propaganda
    is settled “.

    India China and Russia will sign on to anything that offers free money and no
    commitment . Can you really blame them .

    The USA seems intent on trashing one of the
    competitive advantages it still enjoys ..Why ?

    Money for insiders to the worlds latest scam .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Debates are rare, because the multi-trillion dollar Climate Change Industry cannot afford them.

      [b]Science 135, global warming scare 110[/b]

      [i]For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming” is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St. Andrew’s University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by three votes.

      Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.[/i]

      http://sppiblog.org/news/oxford-union-debate-on-climate-catastrophe

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Well at least the Oxford Union Society has not been bullied into the “science is settled “
    nonsense .
    If an open free debate of the facts takes place the climate con gets shredded ..hence
    few debates .

    Thank you Oxford Union Society members for
    showing both sides of this issue . It is reassuring that people can openly express their view without fear of retribution .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dan Pangburn

    |

    Calling CO2 pollution is scientific incompetence. Calling it carbon makes it sound more ominous and distracts from attending to possible real atmospheric pollutants from coal such as particulates, mercury, NOX and sulfur (as the Chinese are experiencing, especially with the smog in Beijing. The US uses precipitators to remove the real pollutants).

    Proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate and identification of what actually does cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dan you touch on a key issue . If a survey was done of a 1000 people guaranteed
    most would not know they breath out CO2 that demonized trace gas that is essential to life on earth .
    The scary global warming promoters rely on the fact that most peoples scientific knowledge is slightly worse than their own so they get away with branding CO2
    as dirty carbon.

    Imagine the response if extreme green actually said things that they think :

    Well you may think your baby is adorable but as long as it breathes it is in fact a dirty carbon spewing air polluter maggot . But my five kids are OK.

    Sound familiar .

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.