“Last chance” to save the planet stories, 1992-2018

The “planet saviors”, their leaders, they are a bunch of jokers and story tellers. See the timeline of their “last chance” warnings to save the planet unless we send them trillions and trillions of dollars.  There were many similar stories in between these years, I just show random stories from 1992 to 2018. Enjoy.

(1) “FEATURE: Last chance to save the planet?”
New Scientist, By Fred Pearce,  30 May 1992,

(2) “A Global Warming Treaty’s Last Chance”
TIME, By Katherine Bonamici Monday, July 16, 2001,

(3) “Climate talks ‘last chance’ to avoid catastrophe”
2 Dec, 2007, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10479692

(4) “Cancun climate change talks: ‘last chance’ in the snakepit”
By Geoffrey Lean 6:32AM GMT 29 Nov 2010,

(5) “Climate change: Paris ‘last chance’ for action”
By Helen Briggs, BBC Environment Correspondent 22 April 2015

 (6) “Bill McKibben: This Is Our Last Chance to Save the Planet”
By Start Making Sense and Jon Wiener APRIL 20, 2017

(7) “Global Warming and Climate Instability: One Last Chance to Save Ourselves”
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
Global Research, March 12, 2018,


A compilation of “The hilarious legacy of ‘last chances’ for climate, exposed” by Anthony Watts, WUWT November 2, 2015,

Also a compilation of “last chance” as of June 2016,

And from The GWPF, March 5, 2018,

Among the precedent stories and scare made in the 1980s, the creation of UN IPCC. the UN FCCC in 1992, among the basis of “last chance to save the planet” report in 1992 by the New Scientist.

Sources: https://www.carbonbrief.org/warming-warning-1981-tv-documentary-warned-climate-change


Since this is a UN-sponsored alarmism and scam, parroted by almost all governments in the planet +  many showbiz and media personalities + many environmental NGOs, this scam will continue in the decades to come. So I think this will be among the news headline in the future:

2030: “This will be our last chance to save the planet”

2040: “Our last-last chance to save the planet”

2050: “Only 1 year left to really save the planet”

….. J

And these “planet saviours” — UN and government climate negotiators, environmental NGOs, academics, media, consultants, etc. — tell us that we should have more expensive energy, more unstable-intermittent-subsidy-dependent energy, more expensive e-jeepneys and e-tricycles, more climate bureaucracies and bureaucrats, more endless global climate junkets.

Meanwhile, here’s is the latest data on global air temperature, the lower troposphere as of end-February 2018, UAH data.



2017 11 +0.36 +0.33 +0.38 +0.26
2017 12 +0.41 +0.50 +0.33 +0.26
2018 01 +0.26 +0.46 +0.06 -0.12
2018 02 +0.20 +0.24 +0.15 +0.03



Climate alarmism and global energy central planning

Socialists and trying-hard anti-capitalism ideologues in facebook, youtube, etc. who also severely enjoy facebook capitalism, youtube capitalism, keep harping about “man-made” warming/climate change (CC) and thus, demand more government and UN ecological + energy central planning.

They like posting sketches, alarmist articles which very often:

  1. Have no charts of temperature anomaly, only sketches and drawings.
  2. Claim “Earth’s warming at unprecented levels”, no chart or table to show; unprecedented, no precedent? Scam statement.

I always ask them these two questions:

(1) Planet Earth is 4.6 B years old, when, what period that there was no CC?
(2) What was it before this “man-made” CC — less rain, no rain, more rains? less flood, no flood, more flood? less snow, no snow, more snow? Less dogs, no dog, more dogs?

Always they have no answer. Some paleo-climate data showing warming-cooling cycle in the past. The climate alarmists close their eyes if the data do not support their “man-made” CC religion. 140k years ago.



1 million years data.  These guys have faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and the UN.


700 million years data.


Finally, here’s the 4.6 B years timescale. Warming-cooling, endless natural cycle.


What the data and charts above show is that even if 100% of all power plants in the world are from fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, global cooling will still happen. And even if 100% of all energy in the planet is from hydro, wind, other renewables, global warming will still happen. But then religionists and climate evangelists will always have zero appreciation for data. Only faith, strong faith in the words of Al Gore and UN bible.

Why? Money, money, money. Hypocrisy-robbery.


Huge extortion racket, via governments, the UN and other multilaterals.


Climate action and Asian energy realities

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Friday.


Planet Earth is estimated by geologists and other scientists to be 4.6 billion years old. In that period, the world has experienced a series of warming-cooling-warming-cooling cycles. So global warming and climate change (CC) have been there as natural (i.e., nature-made) and cyclical events. See dozens of paleo-climate data and charts that date back to thousands, millions and billions of years ago here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/.

Yet for decades now, we have been bombarded by the United Nations and other institutions and individuals who deny nature-made climate change and climate cycle, deny that global cooling can take place after a global warming phase. Owing to such denials, anthropogenic or “man-made” climate change can only be fought via man-made and UN-directed solutions like large-scale and endless subsidies to intermittent renewable sources.

Such is the dominant global belief and being formalized during the annual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), like the Conference of Parties (COP) 22 meeting in Marrakech, Morocco from Nov. 7 to 18 this year.

The goal of the 160+ intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) is to “hold the average global temperature rise below 2 ºC and 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels.” (source: UNFCCC, “Aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions: an update Synthesis report by the secretariat,” May 2016)

It is another confused document from the UN.

For instance in Figure 14, p.64, the “Key climate hazards identified in the adaptation component of the communicated intended nationally determined contributions” are the following, in order of “hazards.”

Top 5: Floods, Droughts, Higher temperatures, Sea level rise, Storms.

Next 5: Decreased precipitation, Changes in precipitation timing, Vector/water-borne diseases, Increased precipitation intensity, Desertification/land degradation.

In short, the climate “hazards” for the planet according to the UN are more floods, less floods, and no flood; more rains, less rains and no rain; more storms, less storms and no storm. So regardless of the weather and climate, we should send more money to the UN and various government climate bureaucracies, give them more power, more global climate travels and meetings. And they will demonize fossil fuels like coal and oil to “save the planet.”

Such scenarios and proposals are very detached from the realities and needs of many countries, developed and developing alike.

Here are the data from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) released only two weeks ago (see table).


Almost all of the big and developed economies in the region have high reliance on coal and/or natural gas, among the most prominent fossil fuels in the planet. The Philippines in particular has low national electricity production compared to many of its neighbors in north and south east Asia, only 75 billion kWh in 2013. The country also has a very low per capita electricity production of only 690 kWh/person.

Over the past two weeks, I have attended several conferences and meetings and the subject of “expensive electricity” and “insufficient supply of power” would crop up naturally even if the events are not specifically focused on energy.

These events include the DTI’s pre-summit consultation on FTAs and manufacturing industries last Nov. 3, pre-summit consultation on innovation and competitive industries last Nov. 4. One participant said that while garments are labor-intensive, textiles are energy-intensive and they can feel the pinch of high electricity prices.

Meanwhile, during the Philippine Economic Society (PES) annual conference at Novotel Cubao last Nov. 8, the two sessions on energy economics and competition policy have also touched on these subjects including competition in power generation companies and monopolies in power transmission and distribution.

In the Agribusiness commercial legal and institutional reform (AgCLIR) roundtable at Makati Shangri-La last Nov. 11, many agri-business enterprises in the country brought up the matter of high electricity costs.

Last but not the least, during the Asian Legal Business (ALB) — Thomson Reuters’s Competition Forum at Dusit Thani in Makati City last Nov. 15, one of the speakers, Dr. Raul Fabella of UPSE mentioned pricing under monopoly and duopoly or oligopoly, like in power distribution and generation.

The over-riding concern for the Philippines and other developing economies in Asia and the rest of the planet is how to hasten and sustain economic growth so that job creation and poverty alleviation can also be sustained. Having cheap and stable electricity is a major part in realizing this goal.

Forcing expensive and unstable energy sources to “fight climate change” as pushed by the UN and participating governments is contradictory to the above goal. After all, climate change from warming to cooling in natural cycles did happen in the past and continues to happen today.

Governments therefore, should be more realistic and not alarmist in pursuing that over-riding goal. Less ecological central planning, less energy rationing, less climate bureaucratism would be consistent with poverty alleviation.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the president of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRI.

Climate change and the need for cheap energy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld today.

Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless natural and cyclical pattern. A period of global warming for decades is followed by a period of global cooling, which also lasts for decades. So global warming has precedents, it is not “unprecedented.”

There was global warming in the past when there was not even a single car or coal power plant. This chart shows that modern warm period that peaked in the last century was not exceptional or scary.

Energy policies in many countries have been heavily distorted by governments to fight “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming and climate change.

But how can governments, the United Nations and various environmental groups fight something that naturally occurs, like day and night, like wet-dry or winter-spring-summer-fall seasons, like El Niño-La Niña cycles?

This will be my main argument when I present my paper at the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) Conference 2016, with the theme “Toward Inclusive and Sustainable Energy Development” that would be held at New World Hotel in Makati City, Jan. 12-13, 2016.

The recent extreme or severe flooding and drought that people say as proof of “man-made” warming and climate change is not true. As shown in the above figure, the Little Ice Age from 1200s to 1700s showed severe cooling and flooding, brutal winter for decades and centuries.

In the Philippines, many instances of severe flooding killed thousands of Filipinos many decades ago, which is similar to these reports at the turn of the last 2 centuries.

People need cheaper, more stable electricity supply to deal with more frequent flooding and severe monsoon rains. More farmers will have to resort to greenhouse farming, hydroponics farming, elevated fish tanks, to minimize crop losses and stabilize food production and prices. Greenhouse farming can be energy intensive because of the controlled temperature inside the covered structure. The industrial and services sectors of the economy need to expand faster with cheaper and stable electricity, give more jobs to more people, so they can build stronger, concrete houses in good location so they can be spared from more frequent heavy rains and flooding.

Unfortunately, the Philippines still suffers from some form of “energy poverty” compared to many of its neighbors in the region. Even new comer and socialist Vietnam has electricity consumption per capita 2x that of Philippines.

Moreover, the Philippines has the second highest electricity prices in Asia, next to Japan. So succeeding policy measures should be geared towards reducing the price and expanding power supply, and inventing new schemes that will further raise the price should be the least priority of the government.

To fight energy poverty and high electricity prices in the Philippines, the following are proposed, among many others.

One, take advantage of low prices of fossil fuels like oil, natural gas and coal, to expand power generation.

As noted in a previous paper in this column, “Paris COP: Emission cut commitment vs energy needs” last Nov. 26, 2015, these countries have more than 90% dependence on fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) as of 2012: Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Indonesia has 89% dependence.

Vietnam has only 50%+ dependence because 44% of its electricity is from hydro. South Korea and Taiwan have high to modest use of nuclear power.

Two, reduce government bureaucracies, both national and local, in the energy sector. A base-load power plant would require nearly 200 permits and signatures to be constructed. This has become a disease in government, that no one should move or start anything unless they get the bureaucrats’ signatures.

Three, the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (RA 9513) should be drastically revised.

In particular, the provisions on feed in tariff (FIT) which means guaranteed higher price, and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) which means guaranteed minimum percentage of renewables, should be removed.

FIT’s introductory price that was passed on to the consumers in the Philippines from February to December 2015 was only P0.04/kWh. That was not sufficient because there have been many wind and solar plants that came on stream, based on calculations by some players. So consumers must be prepared to pay something like P0.13 to P0.20/kWh sometime this year.

Energy precedes development.

We cannot have strong and sustainable growth and job creation if there is not enough electricity for the people and their businesses, and if electricity prices remain high and continue to rise further. n

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, and a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET).

“Godzilla” El Nino and expensive electricity

The UN annual meeting to “save the planet” via congregation of tens of thousands of governments and multilaterals climate officials, NGOs and media, flying in from different parts of the planet riding thousands of air flights that run 100% on fossil fuels, the #Paris2015, is just 2-3 weeks away.

Among the scary, alarming, worrying stories being spread around is the so-called “Godzilla” El Nino (EN).

A Godzilla, monster El Nino, really? This year’s El nino is indeed big, but the 1997-98 El Nino and 1982-83 El Nino were also big, could be stronger than this one, but they were not called “Godzilla” EN.

And here are the numbers that correspond to those up-down points in the above chart. I only chose the 3 El Nino periods, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2015.

Warm (red) and cold (blue) periods based on a threshold of +/- 0.5 C for the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) [3 month running mean of ERSST.v4 SST anomalies in the Niño 3.4 region (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW)], based on centered 30-year base periods updated every 5 years.


Source: NOAA-NWS Climate Prediction Center,

Nope, this is not a “Godzilla” EN or “Strongest EN in recorded history.” Above are the chart and numbers of recent recorded history. We are not talking yet about past EN 100 or 1,000 years ago or longer.

As Paris 2015 UN climate alarmism and junkets/meeting come closer, we expect more “scary, worrying, very worrying” stories and news reports. They have only one goal — more government, more UN role, more ecological central planning. And these are the basis of continued “expensive electricity to save the planet” policies.

My paper on climate change and cheaper electricity at EPDP Conf. 2016

My paper abstract has been accepted for presentation in an international energy conference here in Manila, January next year. Happy me 🙂

Then I can present in a conference why climate change is natural (nature-made, not man-made) and cyclical (warming-cooling-warming-cooling). And preparing for global cooling phase, we need cheap, un-subsidized, not over-taxed, stable and reliable (available 24/7) energy sources.

Global cooling is more brutal, more deadly than global warming phase. Frequent rising rivers, creeks, lakes and street flood, not rising ocean. Outdoor agriculture and crops will be more exposed to these threats, many farmers will shift to greenhouse and hydroponics farming, indoor cattle growing, fish tank aquaculture, etc. Then there will be higher demand for electricity, cheaper electricity, available 24 hours, 365 days and nights a year.

Here is a portion of my Abstract that was accepted:

Climate Change and the Need for Cheap and Stable Energy Sources


Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless natural cycle. A period of global warming for decades is followed by a period of global cooling, lasting also for decades.

Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, Senate EPW Hearing: “Climate Change: It’s Happened Before”, July 19th 2013.

People can adjust and adapt better under global warming phase as extended drought can be combated by drip irrigation and other innovations in modern agriculture. People in temperate countries prosper more in periods of warmer months as they can grow more food and other agricultural crops.

Global cooling is more dangerous, more fatal, as it is associated with more frequent rains and flooding, longer period and more brutal winter in the temperate countries. Damages to crops, houses, roads and various public infrastructure facilities are high….

The paper will discuss some important data on the climate change debate, briefly review the experiences of UK, Germany and other European economies in their heavy push and various subsidies to renewables like wind and solar.

Relevant and more realistic policy proposals about the future energy mix of the Philippines, energy taxation and regulations, will be explored.

Conference details here, in case you guys are interested, http://www.upecon.org.ph/epdp/conference/

Among the international plenary speakers will be (1) Frank A. Wolak, Stanford University; (2) Ja; mes Roumasset, University of Hawaii; (3) Ujjayant Chakravorty, Tufts University; (4) Mark Rosegrant, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); plus other foreign speakers to be confirmed (TBC). There are many local economists and energy leaders who will speak too.

Many friends were happy to see that letter when  I posted it in my fb wall yesterday. Thanks guys. It will be a big conference, registration fee, already subsidized by USAID, will be $133 or P6,000. As a paper presenter, I won’t pay (makakatipid :-)) and will have a good opportunity to share my views and data to the participants — and be grilled by questions, hehe. But I know this subject well, so am not scared.

Good comment from a friend, Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan:

Congrats, Nonoy. Here’s another side issue about CO2 as a greenhouse gas: Excess CO2 is supposed to be absorbed most by the oceans as carbonic acid (H2CO3) and they say this would make the oceans more acidic (ooohh, scary!). However, carbonic acid easily becomes bicarbonate (HCO3-) and carbonate (CO3–) ions that can form chalk (CaCO3)—or sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3)—that are converted by corals and mollusks into their exoskeletons (reefs and seashells). Why are some people so very scared that excess CO2 will make the oceans so acidic it will make the reefs die (?) when excess carbonate will help the reefs build their exoskeletons faster and the zooxanthellae algae embedded within coral tissue will have higher and faster photosynthesis (due to the more abundant CO2) that gives the corals more energy to convert carbonate ions into reefs? Some people are scaring themselves with half-baked scenarios and models that haven’t been tested yet.

Climate alarmism and FIT for renewables

* This is my article in the thelobbyist.biz, June 28, 2013.

1One tool used by the campaigners of “man-made” or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and its cousin anthropogenic climate change (ACC), is to produce various climate models that show only one thing – an ever-rising global temperature for the planet until 2100 and beyond. Thus, to prevent or limit that from happening, global energy consumption from fossil fuels that contribute to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) level in the atmosphere should be drastically regulated, if not controlled.

How truthful and valid are those UN IPCC climate models’ guesses and projections, that have become basis of many environmental and energy policies in many countries?

Well, the short answer is that they are largely invalid and highly exaggerated, when compared to actual data of the planet’s temperature. For instance, the models projected an average of about 1.0 C warmer than usual for 2013. But as of end-May 2013, we were only 0.07 C warmer than usual, and it is a  declining trend.

Figure 1. Temperature projections vs. actual, 1979-2013


Source: Dr. Roy Spencer, EPIC FAIL: 73 Climate Models vs. Observations for Tropical Tropospheric Temperature, June 4th 2013

After many governments have poured lots of taxpayers’ and energy consumers’ money to wind and solar power around the world for many years and decades, these renewables have contributed only 0.5 percent and 0.06 percent respectively, to global energy consumption.

Figure 2. World energy consumption by source, 2010


Source: Total world energy consumption by source 2010, from REN21 Renewables 2012 Global Status Report.
Reposted in WUWT, A LOL ! press release on renewable energy from wishful thinkers at the University of Delaware, December 10, 2012

Why is this so?  Table below provides an explicit answer – the cheapest energy sources are natural gas, followed by geothermal, hydro, conventional coal, nuclear, and biomass. The renewables like offshore wind and solar PV and solar thermal remain as immature technologies that are very costly, and yet are imposed to the people via additional charges to electricity consumers.

Figure 3. Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources, US, plants entering service in 2018

(2011 $/megawatthour)


Source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

In the Philippines, the Renewable Energy (RE) Act of 2008 (RA 9513) has imposed electricity cost-raising provisions like the feed in tariff (FIT) and renewable portfolio standards (RPS).  FIT is additional charge to energy consumers and given to RE power suppliers, a form of indirect tax. RPS is a system requiring electricity distributors to source a certain minimum of their energy supply to come from eligible RE resources.

Below is the rate of more expensive electricity for Filipino energy consumers. Although rate approved by the ERC is lower than those proposed by the National Renewable Energy Board (NREB), another bureaucracy created under RA 9513, these rates will still slam energy consumers in the country.

Figure 4. FIT for renewables, Philippines, Pesos per kilowatt hour

NREB Proposed ERC Approved
Hydro, run of river 6.15 5.90
Biomass 7.00 6.63
Wind 10.37 8.53
Solar 17.95 9.68

Source: Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), rates approved July 27, 2012

Climate change is true. Climate changes from warming to cooling to warming to cooling, in endless, natural cycles. Global warming was true, it did happen during the Roman period, Medieval Warm Period (MWP), last century’s warming, see again Figure 3 above. Global cooling is also true, it did happen like during the Little Ice Age (LIA) during the Maundeer Minimum and Dalton Minimum, and is happening now.
The terms “climate denier” and “global warming denier” are idiotic statements. Climate change is true, warming is over, it is now global cooling. But some people do not want to recognize cooling, only warming. They do not want to recognize “nature made” CC, only “man-made” CC.

So if CC is natural and will happen anyway with or without humans, with or without SUVs or bicycles, what is the point of the various “fight CC” bureaucracies, programs and global meetings created by many governments and the UN?

What governments should do is to recognize the cooling phase of the planet and thus, prepare for more heavy rains, more debilitating floods and soil erosion. Once they recognize this, then the most immediate action is to undertake large-scale dredging of sewerage system, creeks, rivers and lakes. This will take huge amount of public money, but it is a more useful public spending than creating more climate bureaucracies and sending many climate officials to many and frequent global climate junkets.