This could have been avoided, but, you like to take fossil fueled flights to Pacific islands for vacations

Climate change leaves future of Pacific Islands tourism ‘highly uncertain’

The Pacific Islands are scattered across a vast area of ocean, with some of the clearest waters in the world, and pristine beaches and rainforests.

They are a magnet for tourism, which is vital for many of the countries’ economies.

But the region’s travel industry, and those who rely on it, are increasingly fearful of the impact of continuing climate change.

“Pacific Island leaders have declared climate change as the foremost threat to the livelihoods, security, and well-being of Pacific communities,” says Christopher Cocker, the chief executive of the Pacific Tourism Organisation.

“Without immediate and innovative action, the future of tourism in the region remains highly uncertain.”

Blah blah blah. It’s a ridiculously long article that shocking, or, being that the BBC is a mouthpiece for the Cult of Climastrology, unshockingly, fails to consider that these islands would revert back to their pre-colonial pasts without fossil fuels. No one is coming on sailing ships. All these island nations have lots and lots of airports for planes and helicopters. They receive most of their goods and tourists via fossil fueled planes, along with fossil fueled cargo ships. They often use fossil fuels for their own fishing boats.

The group champions sustainable tourism and environment protection, and is restoring mangroves and planting trees. But Ms Vakacola tells me that this part of Viti Levu, Fiji’s biggest island, is already living with the consequences of warming temperatures.

Bore water is being contaminated by salinity from the encroaching sea and, more and more, rainwater must be harvested during the wet season.

“Water security is a big risk in terms of climate change,” explains Ms Vakacola.

Considering most of these islands were created from corals, rather than being volcanic in nature, did they ever consider that the seas have been much higher in the past?

Anyhow, what they really want is money. They do not want tourists to stop coming on fossil fueled airplanes.

Why can’t these nags just mind their own business?

Scientist calls for Americans to cut off air conditioning in summer, claiming it causes global warming

A scientist is calling for Americans to cut off air conditioning after refusing to use it for 25 years during the throes of the summer in order to combat climate change.

Stan Cox is an Ecosphere Fellow at the Land Institute who also believes the U.S. military is an “enemy” to mitigating climate change. He wrote a guest essay in the New York Times on Saturday, “I Swore Off Air-Conditioning, and You Can, Too,” claiming that “air-conditioning is making our summers even hotter” due to climate change.

“The greenhouse gases created by the roughly 90 percent of American households that own A.C. units mean that running them even in balmy temperatures is making the climate crisis worse,” Cox wrote.

Yeah yeah yeah. You do you. Leave the rest of us alone. Of course, you know that these cultists want to get the government to force people to turn the AC off, or, at least keep it at a much higher temperature.

For those who might say it’s a drastic step that’s too far, Cox believes that they’ll get used to living without AC.

“Our species evolved, biologically and culturally, under wildly varying climatic conditions, and we haven’t lost that ability to adapt. Research suggests that when we spend more time in warm or hot summer weather, we can start feeling comfortable at temperatures that once felt insufferable. That’s the key to reducing dependence on air-conditioning: The less you use it, the easier it is to live without it,” he said.

Piss off. No one asked for your opinion or advice.

It’s because of uncertainty over the U.S. elections or something

Australia may delay release of 2035 climate target as world awaits outcome of US election

The Australian government may delay the announcement of a 2035 climate target until after the February deadline and beyond the next election, in part due to uncertainty about the ramifications of the US presidential election.

Some big emitting countries are lagging in developing their 2035 emissions reduction targets, which under the Paris climate agreement are due before the UN climate summit in Belém, Brazil, in November next year.

Major investors said they were comfortable with countries delaying target announcements if it meant they did the work to make a commitment that was “aligned with science” and reaching “for the highest possible level of ambition”.

Globally, governments are watching the US election before finalising their 2035 commitments. Observers believe Kamala Harris will quickly announce a target if successful but Donald Trump, who has called the climate crisis a “hoax”, has said he would again pull the US out of the Paris deal.

The article really offers no good reason other than “Trump.” If Trump wins, countries are still welcome to institute their wackadoodle doomsday cult policies. Maybe these countries are just coming up with excuses to not destroy their economies?

Volvo has learned a valuable lesson on trying to force their consumers into buying vehicles they do not want. Volvo customer are rabid about purchasing Volvos, much like Subaru customers, and they aren’t really biting on EVs outside of Europe

Volvo reverses goal to make only EVs in 2030

Volvo on Wednesday announced that it is dropping its goal of making only electric vehicles by 2030, saying it now expects it will still be offering some hybrid models as part of its lineup at that point.

The Swedish company, which has China’s Geely as its largest shareholder, and other automakers have seen slowing demand for EVs as price-conscious car buyers turn to hybrids and gas-powered vehicles over affordability concerns as well as access to charging stations.

Volvo and other EV makers are also bracing for the impact of European tariffs on electric cars made in China, a move that follows similar steps in the U.S.

In a statement, the company said it is aiming for 90% to 100% of its 2030 global sales volume to consist of fully electric EVs and plug-in hybrids, with the remaining zero to 10% of its lineup allowing “for a limited number of mild hybrid models to be sold, if needed.”

The reversal of plans to be fully electric by 2030 comes as the company expects the percentage of its electrified lineup — which includes EVs and hybrids — to be between 50% and 60% by 2025. Its share of fully electric vehicles was 26% in the second quarter of 2024, while EVs and hybrids combined amounted to 48% of its electric lineup.

It’s actually still rather tough to get people to get regular, non-plugin hybrids. EVs? Well, it’s a little easier with Volvo, considering they are a premium vehicle, and a goodly chunk of the purchasers will have garages. Home charging is where you save money. The only way to really get people to consider adopting is significantly building out the level 3 charging infrastructure, and losing lots of money on the sale of each one. So, realistically, if Volvo wants to stay in business, they’ll backtrack more and more on their EV pledge.

What’s Stalling Electric Vehicle Adoption in Wyoming?

…..

Wyoming has the second-lowest number of EVs in the country after North Dakota, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, with 1,080 registered. To some degree, that makes sense. Wyoming’s vast open spaces, harsh winters that can reduce battery capacity and populations spread out in small rural pockets make many residents wary of EVs. And disagreement between federal and state authorities about the best locations for chargers might also be slowing the growth of electric cars in the Cowboy State.

Wait, the batteries do not work well when it is cold? Huh.