Well, seem to me that only New Zeland can cope with the temp. with their airlines staff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZRmcKX85so

Claim: Thousands of soldiers ‘given extra leave to save money on heating and fuel costs’

We know the MoD is cash-strapped, but this is taking it too far.
http://www.westmonster.com/claim-thousands-of...n-heating-and-fuel-costs/

https://constitution.com/carbon-taxes-actually-cause-higher-carbon-emissions/
Why Carbon Taxes Actually Cause Higher Carbon Emissions
By Spencer Morrison January 12, 2018

As the hysteria over global warming heats up, carbon taxes have become the “cool” option. Environmentalists love them. So do politicians, who are more than happy to raise taxes while scoring political points.

Carbon taxes, or other analogous pricing schemes, are now prevalent in Western Europe, and are making headway in North America—California recently joined forces with the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and Quebec to create an integrated cap-and-trade carbon market.

Also, many well-known economists support carbon taxes. A relatively new report, written by thirteen leading economists under the direction of professors Nicholas Stern and Joseph Stiglitz, recommends the adoption of a global carbon tax. The tax would value carbon emissions somewhere between 50 and 100 USD per ton by 2030, and would cost upwards of $4 trillion. Theoretically, the tax would raise the cost of using carbon-intensive sources of energy, thereby nudging producers to switch from fossil fuels to “green energy” sources.

Theoretically this makes sense, but reality’s a bitch.

Carbon taxes are just that: taxes. They’re a money-grab disguised with good intentions. Worse still, carbon taxes will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, adopting them in the West will actually raise global carbon emissions by offshoring economic activity from environmentally-friendly places, like the USA, to places with lax environmental laws, like China.
Offshoring, or How Carbon Taxes Raise Global CO2 Emissions

Wealth is like water: it flows to the lowest possible point, and continues to do so until the level is equal. This is why consumers chase cheaper goods, why investors look for undervalued companies, and why multinationals offshore to cheaper markets. This last point—offshoring—is why Western carbon taxes will actually increase global emissions.

The underlying logic is fairly straightforward. Pretend there are only two countries in the world: Germany and China. The cost of doing business in them is identical, however China’s economy is twice as carbon-intensive as Germany’s. In other words, it costs $1 to build a widget in either country, but the widget’s carbon footprint in Germany is only 1 kilogram of carbon, compared to 2 kilograms in China. Clearly it’s better for the environment if widgets are made in Germany.

But Germany’s not satisfied: they want to further reduce their carbon emissions. Therefore, they impose a carbon tax of 10 percent per widget. This raises the cost of making widgets in Germany to $1.10. Ideally, German widget-makers will invest in energy-efficient machinery, and the government can use the tax revenues to plant more trees.

Sadly Germany’s politicians forgot something: Germany is an open market. This means that German consumers can simply buy Chinese widgets—which still only cost $1 to make. At this point, Germany’s widget-makers have two options: (1) they can foreclose, since they’re unable to compete with artificially cheaper Chinese widgets, or (2) they can move their factories to China and import the widgets back into Germany. Either way, China ends up building enough widgets for both China and Germany, and Germany doubles its carbon emissions.

Now imagine what our example would look like if China built widgets for $0.1 rather than $1, and they generated three times as much emissions per widget of Germany, since this better reflects reality. Would a carbon tax in Germany have a hope of reducing global emissions? No.
Evidence Shows that Carbon Taxes Will Increase Global CO2 Emissions

Not only does the logic show that carbon taxes in the West will invariably increase global CO2 emissions, but so does the empirical evidence.

To begin with, data from the World Bank reveals that China, and other developing countries, produce far more carbon per dollar of economic output (at purchasing power parity) than do Western nations. For example, China produced 0.6 kilograms of carbon dioxide per dollar of economic output in 2014, whereas America produced 0.3 kg of CO2, and Germany produced just 0.2 kg. On top of this, China shows no signs of decreasing its emissions any time soon: China’s currently building hundreds of new coal-fired power plants, which will ensure its CO2 emissions continue to rise for decades to come.

Taken together, these facts suggest that every factory pushed out of the West due to carbon taxes actually increases global emissions dramatically, and this will continue to be the case for decades to come. A number of other studies came to the same conclusion.

One important paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that carbon reductions alleged to the Kyoto Protocol were more than offset by increase emissions from imported products. Glen Peters of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research writes:

Our study shows for the first time that emissions from increased production of internationally traded products have more than offset the emissions reductions achieved under the Kyoto Protocol … this suggests that the current focus on territorial emissions in a subset of countries may be ineffective at reducing global emissions without some mechanisms to monitor and report emissions from the production of imported goods and services.

Essentially, local carbon taxes are not a useful tool for mitigating a nation’s carbon footprint. If anything they actually raise global emissions. The paper also notes that China accounts for some 75 percent of the developed world’s offshored emissions.

Another study found that all of the trumpeted carbon reductions in places like Germany fall apart under closer scrutiny:

According to standard date, developed countries can claim to have reduced their collective emissions by almost 2% between 1990 and 2008. But once the carbon cost of imports have been added to each country, and exports subtracted – the true change has been an increase of 7%. If Russia and Ukraine – which cut their CO2 emissions rapidly in the 1990s due to economic collapse – are excluded, the rise is 12%.

These studies conclusively show that the offshoring of Western industry to China has actually increased global carbon emissions. It is unreasonable to assume that a carbon tax, which will further increase the incentive for business owners to offshore, will magically reduce global carbon emissions. There is no silver bullet. Carbon taxes are a pipe dream.

News item from DR (Denmark’s Radio) on January 18, 2018.

Trump sends Climate Adviser to Esbjerg to study wind energy
On January 18, 2018, US President Donald Trump had sent his climate adviser Vincent DeVito to the Danish port city to study how green conversion could actually provide jobs and push the economy.

Today's host was Esbjerg's mayor Jesper Frost Rasmussen.
- He was very impressed. I gave him the history of the city's development from a fishing village to the world's premier port for replacement of wind turbines, he says.

Green conversion has otherwise been a hard sell to the US president. He has refused to participate in the Paris climate accord, and on Tuesday evening he signed a decree to roll back key parts of his predecessor Barack Obama's climate legislation in favor of the coal industry. But Friday last week there was optimism within the Danish wind energy generating industry. The US government said that the application process for the development of offshore wind farms in the US should be more flexible.
And that change could be crucial to Danish companies.

There was a focus on the port of Esbjerg, too. Many facts sat well with the Climate Adviser.
"He really wanted to learn from our experiences. What it has meant for the city and the area. He was particularly interested in whether it had actually created jobs. DeVito was in Denmark to meet with Energy, Supply and Climate Minister Lars Christian Lilleholt and to visit some of the leading Danish energy companies including MHI Vestas, Ørsted and the shipyard at Lindø.

In October 2017, US Interior Minister Ryan Zinke signed a co-operation agreement on off shore wind energy. At the same time, the US government said that it is considering investing $ 400 billion in off shore wind energy by 2050.

Esbjerg on the West Coast of Denmark is the small scale equivalent of Morgan City, LA.

We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead'
Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe
Along one wall of Jim Hansen's wood-panelled office in upper Manhattan, the distinguished climatologist has pinned 10 A4-sized photographs of his three grandchildren: Sophie, Connor and Jake. They are the only personal items on display in an office otherwise dominated by stacks of manila folders, bundles of papers and cardboard boxes filled with reports on climate variations and atmospheric measurements.

The director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York is clearly a doting grandfather as well as an internationally revered climate scientist. Yet his pictures are more than mere expressions of familial love. They are reminders to the 67-year-old scientist of his duty to future generations, children whom he now believes are threatened by a global greenhouse catastrophe that is spiralling out of control because of soaring carbon dioxide emissions from industry and transport.
Advertisement

"I have been described as the grandfather of climate change. In fact, I am just a grandfather and I do not want my grandchildren to say that grandpa understood what was happening but didn't make it clear," Hansen said last week. Hence his warning to Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as US president on Tuesday. His four-year administration offers the world a last chance to get things right, Hansen said. If it fails, global disaster - melted sea caps, flooded cities, species extinctions and spreading deserts - awaits mankind.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jan/18/obama-climate-change