Climate Change

From: Climate Change Dispatch

By: J. B. Shurk

Date: January 13, 2020

The Global Warming Alarmists Really Do Have A Plan

"There is a credibility crisis for Western governments. For too many years, their incompetence and deceit have forced ordinary citizens to question whether they produce more harm than good.

On both sides of the Atlantic, the governing elite play by a set of rules that separates them from those they govern. They ignore popular discontent while placing themselves above the law.

It is in this volatile climate that they push the greatest con game ever concocted: man-made global warming. This is the hubris that brings empires crashing down.

Like any confidence scheme, global warming rests entirely on misdirection and bad faith.

While Western governments create hundred-trillion-dollar programs for fighting the weather, they have (1) never scientifically established that man’s use of hydrocarbon energy causally leads to temperature change of any kind, (2) never articulated some baseline climate ideal for the planet, and (3) never produced a cost-benefit analysis detailing the loss in human life and standard of living required in order to impose upon the world the type of global command-and-control economy necessary to restructure all industry and commerce.

These three pillars are so fundamental that a normal person could be forgiven for assuming they’ve long ago been calculated. That’s part of the con." ...

The Global Warming Alarmists Really Do Have A Plan

The UNFCCC program objectives center on stabilizing and ultimately reducing global annual CO2 emissions. The Kyoto Accords and the Paris Accords place great emphasis on developed country reductions in annual emissions. However, over the life of the UNFCCC, annual CO2 emissions continue to grow at a rate of approximately 1.5% per year. Virtually all of the increase in annual emissions is emissions from developing countries. China’s emissions are growing most rapidly and are expected to equal 50% of global annual emissions by 2030, the year China has suggested it would reach peak annual CO2 emissions. Emissions from India and other Asian nations are also growing rapidly.

The UN Secretariat, the UNFCCC, numerous NGOs and others have proclaimed a climate emergency and are demanding heroic emissions reduction actions from the developed nations, but appear to be totally ignoring that the primary driver of increased annual CO2 emissions is from the developing countries. The media have accepted and then trumpeted the “emergency” message, although also ignoring the role of the developing countries.

Many elements in the US and the EU are pushing the “emergency” meme, asserting that we must drastically reduce CO2 emissions within 10 years or risk exceeding a “tipping point”, though they must realize that the US and the EU alone could not offset the growth in CO2 emissions from the developing countries.

China has aggressively proclaimed its efforts to install wind and solar generation and to promote electric vehicles and high speed rail systems. However, it has been less candid about its efforts to add new coal generation facilities, though there are reportedly approximately 100 generation plants currently under construction and or in the planning process.

The UN rails against CO2 emissions, yet chooses to ignore or even oppose construction of new nuclear generation plants capable of providing reliable baseload power with zero CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, most NGOs actively oppose new nuclear generation and the continued operation of existing nuclear generators. However, there is growing recognition among climate scientists and some NGOs that nuclear generation is absolutely essential if net zero global annual CO2 emissions are to be achieved without destroying the global economy and producing untold misery.

There exists broad understanding that there is no alternative to fossil fuel consumption for the production of iron and steel and the calcining of cement. However, proliferation of wind generation would require massive increases in the production of iron, steel and cement for use in the construction and installation of wind farms. There is currently no “off-planet” facility available to support that increased production and avoid the resulting emissions to earth’s atmosphere.

The UN complicates and confuses the focus of its efforts by including unrelated or tangentially related issues, such as environmental equity and justice, economic inequality, gender inequality, women’s reproductive rights, etc. to the climate change discussion. These are all issues justifying some attention. However, they are hardly on a par with the purported climate “emergency”.

Finally, the UN and the developing nations claim to be very concerned about funding for mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage remediation. However, there are currently no clear definitions of what constitutes climate “loss and damage”, what constitutes a situation which must be mitigated, and what defines a situation demanding adaptation. The levels of funding “demanded” for these efforts are such that a “loosey goosey” approach is totally inadequate and unacceptable, especially to those from whom the funding is being demanded.

By: Burt Rutan

Date: January 2011 (old but still relevant)

An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’

"Our CO2-starved Atmosphere

Note, the green life along the Nile river and the dead desert elsewhere. When co2 is greater in the atmosphere, plants need less water to thrive.

When dinosaurs roamed we had 3 to 5 times current co2 and planet was nearly all green, pole-to-pole Near catastrophe when CO2 declined to 180 ppm, since below 150 ppm plants, then animals die.

If you promote a green healthy planet, then you should lobby for a co2-fertilized atmosphere, not a co2-starved atmosphere." ...

An Engineer’s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’

“A conference is a gathering of people who singly can do nothing, but together can decide that nothing can be done. A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling to do the unnecessary.”, Fred Allen
 

IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established jointly by the UN Environmental Programme and the World Meteorological Organization in 1988.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change.”

The IPCC reviews climate change research in three Working Groups (Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis), Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability), and Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change). The Assessments produced by these Working Groups are then summarized in the Summary for Policymakers.

UNFCCC

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international environmental treaty. It was authorized by the UN in 1992 in anticipation of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and adopted in 1994 upon ratification by 50 nations.

“The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". The framework sets non-binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. Instead, the framework outlines how specific international treaties (called "protocols" or "Agreements") may be negotiated to specify further action towards the objective of the UNFCCC.” (Wikipedia)

The Conference of the Parties is the decision-making body of the UNFCCC. These conferences have been held annually, beginning in 1995.

COP1

The first Conference of the Parties focused primarily on organizational issues.

COP3

COP3 in Kyoto Japan produced the Kyoto Accord, which represented the initial commitments of the developed nation parties to efforts to stabilize and reduce CO2 emissions. Vice President Gore signed the Kyoto Accords on behalf of the Clinton Administration. However, the accords were not submitted to the US Senate for ratification, because the Administration knew the Senate would not ratify them.

COP15

COP15 in Copenhagen, Denmark was to have been the next major step toward emissions reductions. However, the release of the Climategate e-mails shortly before the beginning of the COP made substantial progress exceedingly difficult. The primary effect of COP15 was to expose the division of the parties into three distinct groups: developed countries with technology and money; developing countries which want access to the technology; and, not-yet-developing countries which simply want the money. This fundamental division made agreement on substantial actions difficult.

COP23

COP23 in Paris, France produced the Paris Accords, which were intended to become a treaty which would impose enforceable emission reduction goals on the parties. However, the US Administration lobbied to assure that the accords were not binding, since the Administration knew they would not be ratified as a treaty by the Senate. Instead, the parties offered widely varying Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Many of the parties appear unlikely to meet their commitments under the accords. The US has formally announced its intention to withdraw from the accords, which will become effective in November 2020. Regardless, the US has been a leader in emissions reductions.

COP25

COP25 just concluded in Madrid, Spain. The parties failed to agree on any significant increases in emissions reduction “ambitions”, as well as about issues related to UN-administered funding for climate change mitigation, adaptation and reparations for “loss and damage”. Those issues were all deferred to the next COP (a COPout?).

COP25 involved representatives from 197 nations totaling about 25,000 attendees. The larger a committee, the more difficult it is to accomplish anything of substance. Attempting to lead a committee of 197 is like “herding cats”. Attempting to lead a committee of 25,000 is a fate worse than death, especially when the attendees have very different focuses.

From: Climate Change Dispatch

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Date: January 7, 2020

Three Rules About Climate ‘Event Attribution’ Studies

"In September 2018, as Hurricane Florence was heading towards landfall in North Carolina, a team of researchers announced that the storm would be 80 kilometers larger and drop 50% more rainfall due to “human-induced climate change.”

In a study published last week, the researchers shared that their initial numbers were wildly off base.

The new study explained: “The quantitative aspects of our forecasted attribution statements fall outside broad confidence intervals of our hindcasted statements and are quite different from the hindcasted best estimates.”

In plain English, that means: “We were really, really wrong.”" ...

Three Rules About Climate ‘Event Attribution’ Studies

From: Climate Change Dispatch

By: Pierre Gosselin

Date: January 2, 2020

2019 Science Data Refutes Climate Alarm On Every Front

"No alarm on every aspect: stable polar ice, normal sea-level rise, no consensus, growing snow cover, less tropical storms, tornadoes, shrinking deserts, global greening, predictions wrong, models flawed, climate-driven by the sun, ocean cycles, biodiversity, warmer 1000 years ago…etc…

Some 2019 scientific findings:

Need to make a presentation showing there is no climate alarm? The following findings we reported on in 2019 will put any concerns to rest.

Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers ignored by media

What follows are some selected top science-based posts we published here at NoTricksZone in 2019. These new findings show there is absolutely no climate alarm.

Hundreds of new peer-reviewed papers, charts, findings, etc – which the IPCC, activists, and media ignore and even conceal. No wonder they’ve gotten so shrill." ...

2019 Science Data Refutes Climate Alarm On Every Front

“The United States was warned Wednesday by the United Nations it cannot avoid compensating poorer nations hit by climate change, despite Donald Trump honoring his election promise of leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement”, Simon Kent

Reparations for global greening?

NASA satellite observations confirm that the globe has greened over the satellite era. They attribute approximately 70% of this greening to the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. CO2 affects plants of most types by increasing their rates of growth, but also by increasing the efficiency with which they use available water. Thus, increased CO2 concentrations have made it possible for a range of plant types to grow in areas where annual rainfall was insufficient to support their growth. It is difficult to imagine that this global greening has caused any adverse effects which would justify reparations.

Reparations for improved crop yields?

Data confirm continuing increases in global crop yields. While increased CO2 concentrations play some role in this increase, this role is minor in comparison with the development of more productive, more insect and drought resistant strains of these crops. Again, it is difficult to imagine that increased crop yields have caused any adverse effects which would justify reparations.

Reparations for rising sea levels?

Rising sea levels are one of the primary concerns regarding anthropogenic climate change. However, sea levels have been rising at a steady rate since the inception of sea level measurement, more than 100 years prior to significant increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Therefore, it seems tenuous at best to attribute current sea level rise to the onset of anthropogenic warming. There appears to be no acceleration of the rate of sea level rise over the period since anthropogenic CO2 emissions became a concern.

Reparations for growing Pacific island nations?

Sea level rise has been a particular concern of Pacific island nations whose land area is, on average, only several feet above sea level. The expressed concern is that the islands would progressively lose land area and ultimately become submerged. However, satellite surveys have determined that the land area of most of these islands is growing rather than shrinking. There appears to be no basis for reparations as a result of this land growth.

Reparations for shrinking glaciers?

Many of the globe’s glaciers are shrinking. In general, the extent of global glaciation has been declining since the end of the last glacial period. Recent glacial retreats have revealed evidence of settlements which were abandoned when the glaciers advanced during the Little Ice Age. Other glacial retreats have revealed tree lines at higher elevations than the current tree lines, demonstrating that the glaciers had previously, naturally retreated to higher elevations. It is difficult to identify a justification for reparations in this case, as it is not possible to identify who has been wronged.

Reparations for reduced tropical cyclones?

The frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones has remained relatively constant over the past several decades. Modeling projects future increases, but these projections cannot be verified currently. There does not appear to be any current justification for reparations based on climate change induced variation.

Reparations for stable drought and flooding incidence?

Globally there has been little if any change in drought or flood frequency or intensity, though again, modeling projects such increases. There is no apparent current justification for reparations based on anthropogenic climate change.

Reparations for potential future adverse impacts?

There is no justification for reparations for events which have not yet occurred and might never occur.

Reparations for economic inequality?

Economic inequality has numerous contributing causes, of which climate might be one. However, this economic inequality pre-existed the period in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions are believed to have begun affecting climate. Therefore, though there might be justification for actions to alleviate this inequality, that justification should not be based on climate change.

From: Competitive Enterprise Institute

By: Marlo Lewis, Jr.

Date: December 27, 2019

Year in Review 2019: Climate Policy

"The Trump administration this year continued to dismantle key components of President Obama’s climate policy “legacy.” Supporting and guiding those efforts is a top priority of CEI’s energy and environment team. We oppose coercive schemes to rig the marketplace against fossil fuels for many reasons, which may be summarized as follows:
 

• The climate catastrophe narrative is concocted out of unreliable climate models, inflated emission scenarios, political hype, and unjustified pessimism about human adaptive capabilities.
• Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is a blessing, underpinning all the unprecedented improvements of the past 70 years in global life expectancy, health, per capita income, food security, and access to information.  
• The very real costs of climate “solutions” hugely exceed their hypothetical benefits.
• The more “ambitious” the climate policy, the more likely it is to damage economic growth, consumer welfare, and our institutions of self-government." ...

Year in Review 2019: Climate Policy

“The United States was warned Wednesday by the United Nations it cannot avoid compensating poorer nations hit by climate change, despite Donald Trump honoring his election promise of leaving the 2015 Paris climate agreement”, Simon Kent

Compensation – something, typically money , awarded to someone as a recompense for loss, injury or suffering., Oxford Dictionaries

Reparations – the making of amends for a wrong one has done, by paying money to or otherwise helping those who have been wronged., Oxford Dictionaries

This warning raises significant issues which must be addressed and resolved.

The US, as the richest nation in the world, makes all the remaining nations appear to be relatively poorer. This raises the question of which of the poorer nations are eligible for compensation in the event they have been “hit by climate change”. China, though the second richest nation in the world, appears to believe it is entitled to funding for mitigation and adaptation, in addition to compensation in the event of “loss or damage”.

Another issue is the definition of the expression “hit by climate change”. All nations of the world are exposed, though not uniformly, to the increase in global average surface temperature. In some cases, this increase might be an adverse effect, while in other cases it could be a benefit.

Yet another issue is the determination of the extent to which any adverse effect is the result of anthropogenic emissions rather than natural climate variation. This issue is complicated by the current inability to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic variation. Clearly, natural variation has affected global temperatures, rainfall and drought over earth’s history. The Roman Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are examples of the effects of natural variation on climate.

Another fundamental, though often ignored, issue is the segregation of adverse events into “weather” versus “climate”. Tropical cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and floods are weather events. Being “hit” by one of these events is not the result of climate change, since the occurrence of these events precedes climate change. However, being “hit” by these events more frequently, or for greater duration, or with greater intensity over a 30 year period compared to the occurrence over a reference 30 year period would indicate a “climate change”.

Finally, there are no clear standards of evidence for determining that loss or damage have been the result of weather or climate change, or some combination of the two. For example, damage from a tropical cyclone would occur regardless of climate change, though a documented change in frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones might be the result of natural or anthropogenic climate change.

The US is signatory to no international treaty which commits it to provide reparations to any nation or group of nations for any adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change alleged to have been caused by the US. The US Senate ratified no treaty regarding climate change and thus accepted no obligation under any such treaty. US politicians signed both the Kyoto Accords and the Paris Accords, but did not seek Senate ratification of either accord as a treaty because they knew the accords would not be ratified.

By: CO2 Coalition

“Predictions are hard, especially about the future.”, Yogi Berra, American philosopher

The new year, 2020, is an election year in the US. While there are numerous issues which divide the two parties, climate change is sure to be a very significant point of contention. The current Administration has formally announced US withdrawal from the Paris Accords, which will take effect on November 4^th, 2020. However, all of the opposition candidates are in favor of the US remaining in the Accords; and, should the opposition win the presidency, the US withdrawal would likely be reversed immediately.

The current Administration has also halted US contributions to the UN Green climate Fund. This decision has significant budgetary ramifications, since the US contribution was to have risen to $10 billion annually in 2020; and, probably to $100 billion per year by 2030 as the total GCF funding approached $400 billion per year. The UN is also now seeking approximately $400 billion per year in funding for adaptation in addition to the original GCF mitigation funding goal. It is highly unlikely that funding will approach these goals, even if a new administration were to rejoin the Accords and restore GCF funding.

The focus on climate change will likely be heightened by the opposition party’s declarations of a “climate emergency” and charges of intransigence on the part of the current Administration regarding heroic responses to this “climate emergency”. Several of the leading opposition candidates are also supportive of the “Green New Deal”, which surrounds the climate change issue with a cornucopia of progressive proposals, including free healthcare, free college, student loan forgiveness, guaranteed minimum income, income redistribution, building retrofit for energy efficiency and social, climate and economic justice.

The current Administration will likely move to withdraw or dramatically revise the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding regarding CO₂, which is the basis for much of the regulatory and legislative activity regarding climate change. This effort will be aggressively resisted by the environmental community and is unlikely to be successful in 2020.

State and local efforts to terminate operation of coal and nuclear generators, resist coal export facility expansion, resist electric transmission and gas and oil pipeline expansion, halt expansion of gas service in new construction and otherwise hinder expansion of fossil energy consumption will continue and expand. The DOE program to advance the goal of deep decarbonization and energy system electrification will also continue, absent Administration actions to halt the effort.

The US will continue to reduce CO₂ emissions, largely as the result of replacement of coal generation wit natural gas combined-cycle generation. Meanwhile, China, India and other developing nations will continue to increase their CO₂ emissions, favoring economic growth and prosperity over climate change austerity and deprivation.

The IPCC will develop its Sixth Assessment Report and release the CMIP6 model ensemble. The SAR Summary for Policymakers will likely reiterate and reinforce the “climate emergency” meme. It appears that the CMIP6 models will project even more rapid temperature anomaly increases; and, thus deviate even more rapidly from observations.

There will almost certainly be a COP26, which will present yet another opportunity for the climate change community to wine, dine and accomplish little else. The UN will continue agitating for some form of global governance and for increased developed country efforts to transfer wealth to the developing nations, where it would likely be squandered.

                “Those who will not learn from history are bound to repeat it.”, George Santayana

By: TEDx Talks

The EPA 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding is still in effect and provides the basis for multiple government climate change initiatives.

The EPA Clean Power Plan has been replaced by the EPA Affordable Clean Energy Rule, though the new ACE Rule is being challenged in court by both states and local governments.

The near-surface temperature data continue to be “adjusted” and “infilled” and “homogenized” in an attempt to compensate for data measurement accuracy, measuring station compromise, paucity of measuring stations and other factors.

The consensed climate science community has acknowledged the shortcomings of the current near-surface temperature measurement network, with the exception of the US Climate Reference Network, and has identified the need to develop a global measurement network similar to the US CRN. However, there is apparently no current effort underway to develop and place this network.

The calculated near-surface temperature anomalies continue to display unresolved differences from the tropospheric anomalies measured by satellites. However, there is apparently no effort underway to resolve these differences.

The CMIP5 climate models continue to project larger anomalies than are observed by both the near-surface and satellite anomaly measurements.

The consensed climate science community has acknowledged that the models are “running hot” and that efforts must be made to resolve this issue. However, this effort would be compromised by the fact that the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and the forcings and feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere are not known.

The consensed climate science community continues to use the discredited Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 to conjure up scary potential future scenarios, which then feed the anxiety/frenzy of climate change extremists who demand immediate, heroic actions to avoid the potential scary futures.

Sea level continues to rise at a relatively constant rate, though there remains a significant difference between the tide gauge measurements and the satellite measurements. However, there does not appear to be any significant effort underway to resolve this discrepancy.

Unverified climate models continue to be used to attempt to attribute some share of the causes of various perceived changes in weather events, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. to climate change. These attribution studies remain highly questionable.

Extremist efforts to vilify and/or punish anthropogenic climate change skeptics continue apace. The subject of “re-education camps” has been raised, among other potential “ultimate solutions to the denier problem”.

The 2019 Atlantic hurricane season featured 20 tropical cyclones, 18 named storms and only 6 hurricanes. Only hurricane Dorian made landfall in the US and then only as a Category 1 hurricane. Dorian however devastated the North islands of the Bahamas as a Category 5 storm.

US drought experience in 2019 was relatively typical, although two areas alleged to be in “permanent drought” in California and Texas are no longer in drought.

The annual number of violent tornadoes (F3-5) in the US continues the general pattern of decline since 1950, notably the year in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions are generally regarded to have begun impacting the global climate.

Regardless, panicked calls for urgent action to avoid “Climategeddon” continue to grow more frequent and louder.

From: Climate Depot

By: Marc Morano

Date: December 10, 2019

Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’ 36-Page Report Released at UN Climate Summit in Madrid

INTRODUCTION: Global warming hype and hysteria continue to dominate the news media, academia, schools, the United Nations, and the U.S. government. The Green New Deal being pushed on Capitol Hill and in the 2020 presidential race is based upon “solving” an alleged “climate crisis.”

Teen school-skipping climate activists are testifying to the U.S. Congress and the United Nations and young children are being recruited for lawsuits against the U.S. government for its alleged climate “inaction.” The phrase ‘climate emergency’ has emerged as the favorite for climate campaigners.

But the arguments put forth by global warming advocates grossly distort the true facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and record temperatures to melting polar caps and polar bears, among others. In short, there is no “climate crisis” or a “climate emergency.”

The UN, climate activists, the media, and academia are using the climate scare as an opportunity to lobby for their alleged “solutions” which require massive government expansion and central planning.

This talking points memo is designed to arm people with the voices of the rising number of scientists, the latest data, peer-reviewed studies on key facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore/Green New Deal positions.

The global warming movement has morphed into a coalition of “climate cause deniers.” They deny the hundreds of causes and variables that influence climate change and instead try to pretend that carbon dioxide is the climate “control knob” overriding all the others factors and they pretend that every bad weather even it somehow “proof” of their “global warming.” ...

Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’ 36-Page Report Released at UN Climate Summit in Madrid

Demonstrations regarding a variety of issues are becoming more common in the US and several other countries. Climate change is one of the issues which is a focus of these demonstrations. Spontaneous demonstrations are frequently referred to as “grass roots” or “organic”, while organized and orchestrated demonstrations are referred to as “Astroturf” (fake grass with no roots). One common characteristic of “grass roots” demonstrations is personal commitment on the part of the demonstrators. Another common characteristic is membership in a cohesive group which coalesces this personal commitment. One common characteristic of “Astroturf” demonstrations is paid demonstrators, frequently bussed from remote locations at the expense of the demonstration’s sponsor(s).  

Climate change related demonstrations fall into two broad categories: protests against individuals or companies proposing to take actions which the protestors and/or their sponsors view as damaging to the climate, such as the construction of pipelines, powerplants, coal mines and coal export facilities; and, protests against the effects of government actions to reduce CO2 emissions, including carbon taxes and other actions which increase the cost of living, such as mandates for expensive renewable energy adoption. Demonstrations in the first category tend to be “Astroturf” in nature, while demonstrations in the second category tend to be more “grass roots”.

One of the most visible examples of “Astroturf” demonstrations was the massive effort to interfere with the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Recent examples of more “grass roots” demonstrations include the “yellow vest” demonstrations in France last Spring and the demonstrations in Chile this fall, which resulted in the cancellation of COP25 in Chile, as well as “Chile Explodes: Expensive Climate Policies Spark Mass Riots” a scheduled meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). In both of the latter cases, the protestors opposed government actions to reduce emissions, which had the effect of increasing prices in the respective economies.

Demonstrators at “Astroturf” demonstrations are reportedly well paid, primarily from donated funds. Organizers can reportedly earn $1,500 per week, while individual demonstrators can reportedly earn $15 per hour. Individual demonstrator payments are frequently made in cash, so there is no “money trail”; and, no income tax payments. Organizers have used Craig’s List and other internet sites to recruit protestors.

Climate change protests in the US have so far fortunately not matched the intensity of the French and Chilean protests, but there is no guarantee that will not happen in the future. The California wildfires and the massive electric power interruptions in California are being attributed, at least in part, to climate change. The wildfires endanger residents and their property, while the power interruptions are a major inconvenience to the residents and businesses in the areas affected.

Several electric utilities in California have been accused of responsibility for the wildfires. Pacific Gas & Electric is the defendant in numerous lawsuits, which have forced the company into bankruptcy. The resolution of these lawsuits and the treatment of residents displaced by the wildfires and inconvenienced by the power interruptions intended to prevent future wildfires could have a significant impact on the nature and extent of demonstrations in the future.