This document is part of an archive of postings on Greenie Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written

This is a backup copy of the original blog





31 August, 2022

Country Hailed as 'First Major Renewable Energy Economy' Is Now Collapsing Into Power Poverty

It’s beginning to look like Germany put too many eggs in the renewable energy basket.

For years now, progressives have praised the European country for paving the way forward on renewable energy. With the fourth largest economy in the world, Germany has had 100 percent of its energy output covered by renewables for years now, according to Clean Energy Wire.

Renewable Energy World praised the country over a decade ago for being “the world’s first major renewable energy economy.”

Because of this overreliance on renewables, energy prices have skyrocketed. Thanks to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the price of natural gas is spiking, leaving European nations with no cheap alternatives. Power prices in Germany have reached record levels, forcing the German government to increase the annual cost of household gas bills by nearly 500 euros, Reuters reported.

“The alternative would have been the collapse of the German energy market and, with it, large parts of the European energy market,” German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said, according to Foreign Policy Magazine.

The country has since taken up a number of energy-saving measures. For instance, the government has shut off spotlights by monuments in the capital city of Berlin, and people have taken to stocking up on wood for the upcoming winter.

If the country had instead invested in nuclear power, a clean yet reliable alternative to renewables like wind and solar, perhaps this crisis wouldn’t be as severe.

Sadly, the country opted to phase out all of its nuclear power plants. In July, Reuters reported the many reasons for this decision — none of which really made any sense if you realize how great of an energy alternative nuclear power is.

“A first assessment by the environment and economy ministries in March did not recommend extending the plants’ lifetime, citing legal, licensing and insurance challenges, the need for extensive and possibly costly safety checks and a lack of fuel rods to keep the plants running,” Reuters reported.

Author and journalist Michael Shellenberger used to be a big fan of renewables until he learned more about their actual cost. Speaking with The Wall Street Journal on Aug. 8, Shellenberger revealed why Germany and the rest of green energy Europe, for that matter, were headed for disaster.

According to Shellenberger, the world is currently in a crisis of too many renewables.

“Germany had too much renewables. Its electricity is now the most expensive in Europe, and it became dependent on Russia for reliable fuels, mostly natural gas, because it depended so much on these weather-dependent renewables,” Shellenberger told the Journal.

In his view, Europe isn’t the only country in danger of facing this crisis.

As politicians in the Democratic Party continue to demand a transformation of the American energy economy, this threat becomes more likely to hit the states.

“In the Western parts of the United States first, but now increasingly in the Midwest of the United States, we’re running into potential electricity shortages,” Shellenberger said. “That’s been a consequence of becoming overly reliant on weather-dependent renewables, namely solar panels and wind turbines.”

It’s quite telling how the climate change extremists across the world have gotten us into this predicament.

If the goal really was to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear power would be at the forefront of energy alternatives. Even natural gas would be pushed much harder. But, many of the most ardent climate change alarmists oppose both options.

Then again, what else would one expect from the left? They’ve never cared about facts before.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/country-hailed-first-major-renewable-energy-economy-now-collapsing-power-poverty

***********************************************

Want to Understand the Basics of Global Warming? Just Follow Al Gore's Money

P.T. Barnum might not have said there is a sucker born every minute. But, if he didn’t, he should have, because it is true.

In the Southwestern U.S. in the late 1800s, snake oil salesmen traveled from town to town in buckboard wagons, peddling snake oil. Now they travel around in private jets to world financial centers, trading carbon.

If one Googles the term “snake oil salesman,” the following appears in the Wikipedia definition: “‘Snake oil salesman’ is a common expression used to describe someone who sells, promotes, or is a general proponent of some valueless or fraudulent cure, remedy, or solution. … In popular culture, a particular kind of confidence trick is associated with the snake-oil salesman – the traveling salesman purports to be a doctor (with false credentials), selling fake medicines with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence [emphasis added].”

The Kyoto Protocol was a “climate treaty” ratified by UN climate delegates in December 1997. It became effective in February 2005 for the 36 countries that signed the protocol.

Vice President Albert Gore was a leading proponent of the Kyoto Protocol and signed it on behalf of the U.S. However, President Bill Clinton elected not to submit the climate treaty to the Senate for ratification because the Senate had voted unanimously to oppose the treaty’s ratification. The Senate opposed the treaty because it did not require developing countries to abide by the same standards as developed nations.

The treaty was designed to reduce emissions of seven greenhouse gases; however, the main focus was reducing CO2. The treaty was effective from 2005 to 2012. During that time, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased by 32 percent.

While the Kyoto Protocol did not introduce any new scientific concepts to reduce emissions of CO2, it did introduce a novel economic concept: trading carbon credits and, later, trading carbon offsets.

The idea of trading carbon credits or offsets is based on the fact that living plant matter and the world’s oceans absorb CO2 and are known as “carbon sinks.”

Plant matter absorbs CO2 and emits oxygen in a process called photosynthesis. It is necessary for all human, animal and plant life (including agriculture) on Earth. The world’s oceans absorb and emit CO2 as part of the natural process referred to as the carbon cycle, which includes photosynthesis. Very little is known about the world’s carbon cycle; too many variables are involved, and there is a lack of methodology to measure them.

This is how the “trading scheme” (as the UN calls it) for carbon credits and offsets works.

A UN climate treaty such as the Kyoto Protocol establishes an allocation of carbon credits for a country based on an emission target for a period of time. The carbon emitters in the country are given a target by the government. If the emitters exceed their target, they can buy unused credits from the government, other emitters who don’t use their full allocation or from carbon traders.

There are three main groups of carbon offsets: a removal unit (RMU), an emission reduction unit (ERU) and a certified emission reduction (CER) unit.

An RMU results from land use that primarily affects forestation, such as planting trees or agreeing not to cut down trees, but can also include planting crops or other plant matter. An ERU is acquired by a “joint implementation project” involving two developed countries. If a developed country expects to exceed its emission target, it can invest in a project in another developed nation to reduce carbon emissions. Finally, a CER unit results from an investment by a developed country in a developing country that either reduces or eliminates the emission of CO2.

It should be apparent that the opportunity for fraud in the certification of each of these activities is significant.

So why are trading carbon credits and offsets like selling snake oil?

In my book, I demonstrate that the first principles of science in the relevant fields of thermodynamics, spectroscopy, atmospheric physics and quantum mechanics, as employed in published, peer-reviewed scientific research, prove that CO2 has a de minimis effect on the Earth’s climate.

Further, the world’s temperature databases reveal virtually no warming of the lower troposphere (first 8 km of the atmosphere), the world’s oceans or land mass. Therefore, there is no need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Just like the snake oil salesman of the old West, the new snake oil salesmen use the fraudulent pseudoscience of the global warming hypothesis to sell carbon credits and offsets — in this case, to cure an ailment that does not exist.

Finally, the new snake oil salesmen employ the same sales tactics as their predecessors: Convince people that if they buy their snake oil, they will be doing good — in this case, reducing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/op-ed-want-understand-basics-global-warming-just-follow-al-gores-money

**********************************************************

Lights out for Britain's industrial heartlands: The UK's army of small manufacturers face being pushed to the precipice this autumn as energy bills soar

When the Governor of the Bank of England paid a visit to firms in East Anglia this summer, the boss of a local scrap metal firm didn’t mince his words.

David Dodds, managing director of Ipswich-based Sackers, told Andrew Bailey that his company is facing a cliff-edge this autumn due to soaring energy costs.

‘We had him in our boardroom for two hours,’ Dodds says. ‘We hope we gave him a useful insight into the challenges we face as a company operating in the UK and internationally.’

That is a polite way of saying he made no bones with Bailey – who has been widely criticised for his failure to tackle rising prices – about the grim reality facing Sackers and many other firms.

Sackers has been in business for nearly 100 years and has survived the Second World War, the economic travails of the 1970s, and numerous economic downturns.

But, even for the most seasoned and resilient businessmen and women, this energy crisis is daunting.

Bills have already spiralled upwards alarmingly and, unlike households, there is no cap.

Large numbers of firms, including Sackers, are on fixed contracts that are due to end in October, at which point they will face huge hikes.

‘We’re now paying £120,000 a month for electricity. That bill has gone up 171 per cent in less than a year,’ says Dodds. ‘We’re planning on it going up by another 60 per cent per annum when we renew in October.’

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/lights-out-for-britain-s-industrial-heartlands-the-uk-s-army-of-small-manufacturers-face-being-pushed-to-the-precipice-this-autumn-as-bills-soar/ar-AA11hRfr

********************************************

EV chargers to be deployed on power poles

Not exactly a great leap forward. Note that it takes a whole hour to get enough charge to drive 50km

A local tech company has won a grant to deploy 50 electric vehicle chargers on streetside power poles, overcoming one of the key obstacles to widespread EV adoption.

The scheme is similar to others that have been rolled out across Europe, the United States and Canada in the past three years. London has more than 1000 public lamp post chargers, ranging in capacity from 3kW to 50kW.

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) – set up to fund investment in EV infrastructure – has awarded Intellihub $871,000 to install the 7.4kW chargers, which can add roughly 50km of charge every hour.

The company will install EV chargers on power poles across nine local government areas in New South Wales, connected directly to the overhead electricity supply.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/motoring/motoring-news/ev-chargers-to-be-deployed-on-power-poles/news-story/082af9e3ad7a88797a094a99f44652a4

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



30 August, 2022

Greenland ice melting is INEVITABLE because of climate change and will cause sea levels to rise 10 inches

Just another prophecy. Extrapolating to the long term from just two decades of data is mindless

The melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet will cause global sea levels to rise by more than 10 inches (27cm) – even if the whole world stops burning fossil fuels today, a new study has warned.

Researchers from the National Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) studied two decades worth of measurements to predict the minimum ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet from climate warming so far.

Their findings suggest that, under the best possible situation, the Greenland Ice Sheet will lose about 110 trillion tonnes of ice.

'In the foreseeable scenario that global warming will only continue, the contribution of the Greenland Ice Sheet to sea level rise will only continue increasing,' said Professor Jason Box, lead author of the study.

'When we take the extreme melt year 2012 and take it as a hypothetical average constant climate later this century, the committed mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet more than doubles to 78 cm [30 inches].'

What time frame are we looking at?

While previous studies estimated sea level rise with climate models, this is the first time that researchers have made estimations based on measurements.

Unfortunately, the downside to this method is that it does not give a timeframe.

'In order to get the figure that we have, we had to let go of the time factor in the calculation,' Professor Box added.

'But our observations suggest that most of the committed sea level rise will occur this century.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11157017/Melting-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-cause-sea-levels-rise-10-INCHES.html

***********************************************************

Closure of coal power station set to be delayed to prevent UK blackouts

The effort to prevent electricity blackouts this winter is expected to delay the closure of part of a coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire, with the plant’s German owner nearing agreement with the UK authorities.

In the third in a series of deals to have more coal power on standby if needed, National Grid’s electricity system operator (NGESO) is working towards finalising an agreement with Uniper to keep all of the operations at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar site open through the winter.

In May, the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, wrote to NGESO asking executives to work with Uniper and fellow owners of coal-power stations Drax and EDF to slow their closure plans after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shook the energy markets.

Uniper had been due to decommission one of its 500-megawatt units at the Nottinghamshire plant at the end of September, two years before closing the remaining three units at the site.

Under the deal, NGESO is expected to pay the company a fee to delay the decommissioning so all three units can be called on if needed. Uniper will also be compensated for costs incurred, including coal purchases, with any additional charges eventually being fed through to consumers’ energy bills.

The UK government has committed to ending the use of coal power in Great Britain by October 2024, a year earlier than originally planned. But that target is now at risk as ministers and power operators race to ensure security of supply.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/closure-of-coal-power-station-set-to-be-delayed-to-prevent-uk-blackouts/ar-AA11cgzY

*************************************************

Democrats Obstruct Their Electric Vehicle Push With Surprising Tax Credit Requirements

The federal government’s electric vehicle (EV) transition is in full swing, and Democrats have hyped the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as an accelerant to that evolution.

Further, gas prices’ continual pounding of consumers at the pump has spurred EV interest to rise to 36 percent, according to a 2022 Consumer Reports survey. That may not sound like much, but it’s a significant increase from the 2020 report, when EV interest was at 4 percent.

Still, one of the hurdles to increased EV adoption is price. On July 12, Kelley Blue Book reported that the average cost of an EV was more than $66,000, while the price for an average gas-powered vehicle was $43,942—a $22,000 difference.

To help allay concerns about price toward increasing adoption, Democrats proposed an expansion of EV tax credits in the IRA; the credits took effect on Aug. 16. However, since the IRA was enacted, some experts are pointing out that the new credits exclude lower-priced EVs and could phase out entirely in 2023.

Indeed, economically priced EVs from Toyota and Hyundai are now ineligible for EV tax credits, while Audi’s Q5 PHEV (plug-in hybrid EV) and BMW’s 330e qualify for up to $7,500—for now.

Why? Democrats tied the EV credits to an “assembled in North America” requirement, and, in 2023, that includes the battery.

Assembled in North America

Before the IRA went into effect, there were approximately 72 EVs eligible for a tax credit, according to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation industry trade group.

Now, just 16 model year 2022 personal vehicles qualify for the federal tax credit, and only three 2023 models are eligible, according to the Department of Energy. If you’re looking for a commercial vehicle, two 2022 vehicles qualify.

The average manufacturer’s suggested retail price is $54,897 for the 2022 qualifying base models. That price doesn’t include taxes, fees, or other extra charges, trade-ins, or discounts.

Further, only two base models on the list are below $36,000, five are between $43,000 and $47,650, and the remaining nine are between $51,000 and $87,400.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats-obstruct-their-electric-vehicle-push-with-surprising-tax-credit-requirements_4692185.html

********************************************************

The plague of the green elephants

Viv Forbes

Legend says that if you displeased the King of Siam, he would give you a white elephant. These rare and protected elephants were incredibly expensive to keep. So a ‘White Elephant’ came to mean a possession that is useless, troublesome, expensive to maintain, and difficult to dispose of – like a Sacred Cow, but much bigger.

Today the deluded rulers of the Western world are gifting us and future generations with plagues of Green Elephants – useless, expensive, and protected green rubbish.

The biggest green elephants in Australia are the five desalination plants built hurriedly around the same time climate catastrophist Tim Flannery forecast that burning hydrocarbons would create perpetual drought.

Climate botherers forgot about La Niña, with its cycles of rain and floods for Australia. These complex and expensive de-sal plants have largely sat idle.

The sun powers the greatest desalination plant on earth, all for free. If we had spent all that desalination money on dams we could have moderated La Niña flood damage, insulated against El Niño droughts, and provided naturally desalinated water for many towns and industries.

Australia was also conned into a war on hydrocarbons by American climate catastrophist, Al Gore, and his animated cartoon. This generated another epidemic of Green Elephants – solar panels, wind turbines, and spiderwebs of power lines that squander capital, uglify our landscapes, and destroy grasslands, forests, and bird life, as well as dismantling our once-cheap and reliable electricity supply. Future generations will be faced with the removal and disposal of these Green Monuments to Stupidity.

Another Green Elephant is being suckled in the Snowy Mountains – Snowy 2 Pumped Hydro. Its plant and transmission lines will cost $10 billion. More huge batteries are required to ‘solve’ the chronic intermittency of wind/solar energy.

More Green Elephants are being planned by hydrogen speculators. These net consumers of energy will guzzle huge quantities of fresh water to produce a dangerous explosive gas that cannot be used by motorists or industry without much research and new infrastructure. Some even dream of exporting our precious fresh water via hydrogen (nine tonnes of water for every tonne of hydrogen).

Perhaps the world’s biggest Green Elephant is being bred in Australia’s Northern Territory. This green folly would connect the world’s biggest collection of solar ‘farms’, wind turbines, and batteries to Singapore via the world’s longest under-sea extension cord across a deep submarine trench that is subject to many earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions.

These disastrous Green adventures are driven by the UN Billionaires’ club and promoted endlessly by government media and education bureaucracies, and vocal vested interests.

This plague of Green Elephants will destroy our industries, our farms, and our access to cheap reliable fuels and electricity.

It is time for a Green Elephant Hunt

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/the-plague-of-the-green-elephants/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



29 August, 2022

The Koonin Dessler debate

The debate I announced here between Steve Koonin and Andy Dessler took place Monday August 15th, it was very educational and illuminating. I will try and write more about it in a few days.

In short Andy Dessler said that economic models suggest that climate change is a negative for human civilization and not positive at all. But he avoided putting any numbers to this assertion.

Dessler believes that wind and solar produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, and that they can provide most of our power. Koonin counters that the only reason wind and solar are cheaper is that the cost of fossil fuel backup and the required changes to the U.S. grid are not included in the solar and wind costs. Koonin shows an estimate of $2.4 trillion to upgrade our electric grid to work with mostly wind and solar.

Koonin stated that the costs of climate change are minimal, and in 100 years will not be noticeable because the world economy will grow so much in that time. Climate change, even in the worse scenarios, only reduces growth very slightly, by 4% or less, and everyone will still be better off. He notes that in the past global warming and climate change have benefited mankind since people are much better off today and much more resilient to climate change than 100 years ago. He also points out that the poor of today should not be made to suffer because the elites (that is the U.S. and the western world) believe, without evidence and only based on models, that fossil fuels are polluting. He adds that solar and wind are not pollution free.

Koonin quotes U.S. economist Anthony Downes, who once said:

“The elite’s environmental deterioration is often the common man’s improved standard of living.”

At the end of this very interesting Oxford-style debate in the New York Sheen Center, these were the results:

Obviously Koonin won, the swing was 25% in his favor. Let us hope that these results are not changed online like they were in the last big climate change debate.

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/08/15/the-koonin-dessler-debate/

**************************************************

Talk about corporate welfare: Federal giveaways to wind, solar sectors are about to explode

The hype around the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, also known as the Manchin-Schumer bill, has been extraordinary. On Aug. 8, New York Times opinion columnist Paul Krugman published a piece headlined “Did Democrats Just Save Civilization?” in which he declared that “experts on energy and the environment are giddy over what has been accomplished” and the “world is a more hopeful place than it was just a few weeks ago.”

Five former Treasury secretaries declared that the measure will “help increase American competitiveness, address our climate crisis, lower costs for families, and fight inflation.” Meanwhile, Leah Stokes, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, claims the bill will “create manufacturing all across this country.”

Amid all the hosannas, precious little media attention has focused on exactly how the $370 billion in energy-related spending will be divvied up. But a look at the numbers published on Aug. 5 by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that this bill is not the vaunted “silver buckshot” that activists say will save us from catastrophic climate change. Instead, Manchin-Schumer is a 20 carat-gold blunderbuss that rewards, well, everybody. Electric vehicles (EVs), “climate justice,” hydrogen, carbon capture — a total of 68 energy- or climate-related line items are listed in the CBO report — and, yes, I counted them.

The handouts in the bill show, once again, the power of the NGO-industrial-corporate-Congress-media complex. But the CBO report also makes it abundantly clear that the cost to taxpayers of the federal handouts to the wind and solar sectors are about to absolutely explode.

According to the CBO, Big Wind and Big Solar could collect as much as $126.9 billion in new federal tax credits between now and 2031. If that occurs, the total cost of federal giveaways for wind and solar will more than double — and could total nearly $240 billion by 2031.

Before diving into the particulars in the CBO report, let’s back up to recall what the latest Treasury Department data on tax expenditures (published last December) reveal about existing energy-related tax breaks. The Treasury numbers show that between 2022 and 2031, the tax credits for solar and wind will cost the federal treasury $112.9 billion. The investment tax credit (ITC), used by the solar industry, will cost federal taxpayers about $60 billion. The production tax credit (PTC), which expired at the beginning of this year and is used by the wind industry, will cost nearly $52.9 billion. For comparison, the oil and gas sector will get about $29 billion in tax credits and the nuclear sector will get a paltry $3.4 billion.

The 35-page CBO report on Manchin-Schumer contains dozens of line items. It includes estimated outlays on numerous programs, including subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and Medicare. But the big costs in the bill are spelled out in the sections pertaining to energy.

Let’s look at the PTC-related provisions first. For those of you scoring at home, they are listed in the CBO report as Sections 13101 and 13701, which will cost roughly $51 billion and $11.2 billion, respectively. Thus, the cost of the new wind energy-related tax credits in Manchin-Schumer will total about $62.2 billion between now and 2031.

Now, the ITC-related provisions. They are listed as Sections 13102 and 13702 and will cost $13.9 billion, and $50.8 billion, respectively. Thus, the new solar-related tax credits in Manchin-Schumer will cost federal taxpayers about $64.7 billion between now and 2031. A bit of addition shows that the total cost of the new wind and solar tax credits will be about $126.9 billion.

That $126.9 billion in tax credits for wind and solar spelled out in the CBO report will be added on top of the $112.9 billion that was enumerated by the Treasury Department in its December tax expenditure report. Thus, under Manchin-Schumer, the subsidies for wind and solar will total a staggering $239.8 billion between now and 2031. That amounts to some $26.6 billion per year. Put another way, when this measure becomes law, solar and wind will get nearly as much in tax credits every year as the oil and gas industry will get over a decade.

Why should you care? First and foremost, you should care because these tax credits are just another form of corporate welfare. For years, advocates for renewable energy sectors have claimed that wind and solar are cheaper than traditional forms of electricity generation. To cite just one example, John Kerry, the Biden administration’s climate envoy, recently claimed that “Solar and wind are less expensive than coal or oil or gas. They just are less expensive.” If that were true, the wind and solar sectors wouldn’t need tax credits.

Furthermore, these tax credits are fueling land-use conflicts across America as rural communities fight back against the landscape-blighting sprawl of wind and solar projects. The Renewable Rejection Database shows that since 2013, more than 340 communities across the country have rejected or restricted wind projects. Communities are also rejecting solar projects. In March, NBC News reported that “at least 40” towns and counties have enacted moratoriums on solar projects since last year. Although NBC did not publish a list, the Renewable Rejection Database shows that 41 solar projects have been rejected in the U.S. since 2019. The latest example: Greensville County, Va., where the Board of Supervisors rejected a 123-megawatt solar project on Aug. 8 because it was not in “alignment with the county’s Comprehensive Plan.”

The punchline here is clear: Climate change is a concern, but it is not our only concern. Congress must be fiscally responsible. The CBO report shows that Manchin-Schumer contains unconscionable giveaways to the wind and solar sectors. If wind and solar are cheaper than conventional energy production, it’s time for them to prove it — without another $127 billion in taxpayer dollars.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3598195-talk-about-corporate-welfare-federal-giveaways-to-wind-solar-sectors-are-about-to-explode/

*****************************************************

Why Solar Power Is Failing Amid Record-Breaking Heat

This summer brought record-breaking heat, with temperatures reaching as high as 40oC in the UK.

With heatwaves being reported worldwide, leading to wildfires and other environmental concerns, at least one energy sector is getting attention for its major producing potential – solar power. But with solar panels collecting energy from the sun’s radiation, the world’s overheating may (unexpectedly) be of little benefit to solar power production.

However, this is not stopping rising consumer interest as people are driven to invest in solar technology as they see both hotter summers and rising consumer prices. With some of the hottest summers on record for several decades in many parts of the world, it must be doing wonders for solar power, right?

As the world heats up, people may think that more sun will bring more solar energy, even if it has been negative for many other reasons. But soaring temperatures may be hindering solar power production as solar panels work optimally at around 25oC and start becoming less efficient when the heat goes above this. And even if the heat does not hamper solar production, it is also doing little to help it.

With record temperatures being seen across much of Europe this summer, as the U.K. reached 40oC in July, solar farms have been seeing positive output levels, with Solar Energy U.K. reporting on 20th July that the country’s solar power output had “met up to a quarter of the U.K.’s power demand”. But this is mostly down to the country seeing more days of sunlight rather than higher temperatures.

Of course, when there’s sun there’s solar power. But because of the way solar panels work, they become slightly less efficient, by around 0.5 percent, for any degree over or under 25oC. This means that peak production periods in much of the world often happen in cooler spring months rather than during the summer.

Although Solar Energy U.K. believes that significant disruptions would only be seen if temperatures were to rise to highs of 65oC or above. CEO of the firm, Chris Hewett, stated: “It’s marginally better for efficiency in the spring but essentially if you have more light, you produce more solar power.” He added, “You have to remember that solar panels work all over the world. The same technology we put on our roofs is used in solar farms in the Saudi Arabian desert.”

But uncertainty around what rising temperatures mean for solar panel productivity has not stopped interest in solar energy from picking up as the public sees the correlation between hotter weather and solar power production. As countries around the globe face rapidly rising consumer energy prices, utility bills are costing people hundreds, or even thousands, a year more. This has helped to shift public opinion in favor of the rapid construction of strong renewable energy sectors, as well as home solar technology installation, as they are seeing the limitations of oil and gas.

In the U.K., the number of searches on eBay for solar panels and solar power batteries increased by 54 percent and 134 percent respectively in June compared to the same period last year. Demand for products to track and reduce energy use, such as smart meters, has also increased. In 2020, a government report stated that around 970,000 U.K. homes had solar panels, just over 3 percent of homes, with power production increasing from 1 MW in 2008 to 11,730 MW in 2020. According to the U.K. credit company Experian, around 1.9 million households are expected to install solar panels or other renewable energy technologies in 2022, showing a significant boost in public interest.

While the heat waves being seen across the world may not be boosting solar production in the way many might have thought, they have encouraged public interest in solar technologies. As consumers face rapidly rising energy prices and see more hot, sunny days, many are now turning to renewable energies such as solar power as an alternative to help them save money and become more self-sufficient.

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/Why-Solar-Power-Is-Failing-Amid-Record-Breaking-Heat.html

****************************************************

Warmist deceit in Australia

‘Global heating pushing Australia’s Platypus towards extinction’. So reads a recent headline in Oceanographic magazine reporting a study released by researchers from the University of New South Wales and the University of Melbourne.

Relying on alarming projections of worsening, more frequent droughts, the researchers concluded ‘platypuses face increased local extinctions’, with numbers plummeting by up to 73 per cent.

But then, apocalyptic premises will inevitably result in catastrophic conclusions even when weather patterns are not unprecedented. Indeed, the five worst single years of recorded drought occurred before 1900. And, despite the latest floods, 2021 was only the wettest year since 2010 and, the sixth-wettest year since national records began in 1910. This was well before humans began emitting ‘dangerous levels’ of CO2.

But for catastrophists, if droughts and floods don’t do it, the Bureau of Meteorology’s ‘homogenised’ average land temperatures, which can’t be independently verified, are always a safe bet. They consistently record higher temperatures than more accurate lower-troposphere satellite observations. Satellites have been measuring temperatures since January 1979 and have observed no statistically significant global warming for a decade. No matter. The BoM knows there is a ready market for warming data.

But wait. Haven’t platypuses been around for 16 million years and wouldn’t they have survived more hostile climatic conditions than modern times? And, despite all the panic, isn’t the reality that the actual global rate of temperature increase is about one-third the projected centennial rate?

Still, studies which conclude climate change threats to wildlife survival, not least cuddly koalas, are career enhancing. But, as researcher Maria Nilsson and colleagues at the University of Münster, assert, Australian marsupials have also been around for a long time. They ascribe a migration scenario whereby possibly one group of ancestral South American marsupials migrated across Antarctica to Australia. This occurred prior to the landmasses separating during the warm Cretaceous period, some 80 million years ago when the poles were ice free. Volcanic eruptions and an asteroid put an end to that. Sea levels began to fall and temperatures started to drop. So extreme was the fall in temperatures that dinosaurs became extinct. But not marsupials.

And, it’s not just our fauna. The Great Barrier Reef has been a popular focus of climate catastrophists. Not as ancient as many wildlife species, the reefs have grown on Queensland’s south continental shelf for about two million years and for up to eighteen million years in the north. In their current incarnation they are probably 12,000 years old.

Over their entire existence, sea levels have changed many times. During the last ice age, which began around 2.6 million years ago, the sea level dropped more than 100 metres, making it possible to walk to the outer reef. When the ice age ended around 15,000 years ago, sea levels rose rapidly and new corals grew to form today’s reefs.

Despite this extraordinary record of survival, since the early 1970s activists have been predicting the end of the reef. The latest warning came in a study from James Cook University’s ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. It claimed the reef had lost more than half of its corals since 1995 due to warmer seas driven by climate change. The study’s lead author predicted ‘The northern Great Barrier Reef will never look quite the same again…. There is no time to lose – we must sharply decrease greenhouse gas emissions ASAP’.

This call to arms was enthusiastically joined by the ultimate global warming cheerleader – the United Nations. It warned that should temperatures reach 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial times, 90 per cent of corals will be wiped out. It called for the reef to be put on a list of world heritage sites that are ‘in danger’. Its Unesco agency lectured Australia to take ‘decisive and immediate action to mitigate the impacts of climate change’.

Both JCU and the UN seem ignorant of the fact that Australia already spends per capita ten times more on renewable energy than the world average and four time more than China, Europe, the United States and Japan. And by making Australia a convenient scapegoat, they cravenly avoid exposing the real villain – Beijing, whose emissions in the last decade alone have grown by 25 per cent and now exceed all developed countries combined, almost matching them on a per capita basis.

Which makes the latest Australian Institute of Marine Science annual report proving coral coverage on the northern and central parts of the Great Barrier Reef is at its highest level since monitoring began 36 years ago especially unwelcome. It validates Dr Peter Ridd’s views whose scholarship countering the prevailing apocalyptic orthodoxy, had him fired from JCU.

That said, while the results are reliable, AIMS’s methods are outdated, which raises questions as to why, with $1.44 billion in government grants and pledges, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has not funded AIMS into the latest Japanese technology? Perhaps in ignorance lies financial bliss? True or not, blaming global warming for the projected decimation of the platypus, certain marsupial populations and, the Great Barrier Reef, has proven to be a lucrative source of funding for activists and rent-seekers.

It’s also an excuse for the federal government to institutionalise massive wealth transfers through a 43 per cent 2030 emissions reduction target. It knows this ambition is utterly unattainable but that a lie told often enough becomes the truth. So the enforced economic and social distortions which follow will enrich the few at the expense of the many and be justified on the familiar, yet dishonest, ground that the cost of emissions reduction is far less than the damages of inaction.

As US House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi neatly summarised when supporting the Democrats’ historic climate bill, ‘How can they (Republicans) vote against the planet? Mother Earth gets angry from time to time and this legislation will help us address all of that’. In a world led by superstitious authoritarians, who will argue?

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/who-will-argue-against-the-planet/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



28 August, 2022

Japan’s nuclear renaissance

Japan is reversing its avowedly anti-nuclear stance, restarting idled plants and looking to develop a new generation of reactors, announced Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on Wednesday. This major policy shift from the world’s third biggest economic power underlines both the seriousness of the global energy crisis and points to the most likely way ahead.

This announcement would have seemed unimaginable a decade ago in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, which saw the plant flooded and led to three separate hydrogen explosions. Then prime minister Naoto ordered those living within a 12-mile radius of the plant to be evacuated as the Fukushima area was designated a contaminated wasteland. I well remember the widespread fear that we were days away from a radioactive cloud heading south to engulf us in Tokyo. Many fled, while others refused to venture outdoors. Iodine tablets were distributed and we hoped for the best.

The worst prophecies of disaster didn’t come true. The fact that it subsequently became apparent that the main problem with Fukushima was its ill thought through coastal location and poor plant design rather than any inherent problems with nuclear energy was immaterial. Voices of moderation and caution were drowned out by the shrill denunciations of the already powerful anti-nuclear lobby, who saw their apocalyptic warnings being fully justified.

Under pressure, prime minister Naoto pledged to ‘reduce and eventually eliminate [Japan’s] dependence on nuclear power’. He immediately closed the ageing Hamaoka plant and called for the abandonment of plans to build 14 new reactors. Japan now has just seven operating reactors (from a pre-Fukushima high of 50) with three offline due to maintenance. There are many others still in existence, but their operation is being held up by the strict licensing process imposed after Fukushima.

Around 80 per cent of the Japanese public opposed nuclear powerin aftermath of Fukushima. The most vocal opposition came from the Hidankyo group – made up of survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The group, who had 10,000 members at the time, called for the complete end of nuclear power generation in Japan back in 2012. Japan’s nuclear program seemed moribund.

But that was then and this is now. The ramifications of the war in Ukraine have made Japan, which imports 90 per cent of its energy, especially vulnerable. Then there is the post-lockdown financial crisis with its symptom: inflation, almost unheard of in Japan, is causing palpitations and focusing minds.

Then there is Kishida himself, whose views on energy have always seemed to favour the practical and achievable. He is one of the least vocal world leaders on anthropogenic climate change – does he really believe in it? This is the man who won the ‘fossil of the day’ award at COP26 for a speech deemed insufficiently zealous about the net-zero agenda. He has been diplomatically vague on the issue throughout his career, stressing the importance of energy security and technology as much as carbon emissions reductions.

Kishida’s announcement has surprised many, but it perhaps shouldn’t have done. He gave hints of his thinking on the matter in an important but underreported policy speech at the Mansion House in London in May (it was the same day Graham Brady announced the Tory leadership contest). He paid lip service to Japan’s 2030 emissions reduction targets (46 per cent by 2030 – as imagined in a ‘vision’ by jejune environment minister Shinjiro Koizumi) but since the target was set before he became PM and the end date will almost certainly fall outside Kishida’s tenure, it can’t be taken too seriously.

The key phrase he used in London was when he said Japan’s environmental policy must be compatible with ‘maintaining a stable energy supply’, a theme he developed by stressing the importance of nuclear energy while making only the briefest mention of renewables (no targets here). He didn’t even promise to phase out Japan’s remaining coal plants. It was strikingly equivocal language for a world leader at the time.

Kishida is even bolder now. He won a resounding victory in July’s upper house election and perhaps feels there will never have a better time to chart a new course. In any case, the fervent antipathy to all things nuclear is dissipating. Even though Kishida is from Hiroshima and has made a commitment to peace inspired by the bombing of his birthplace a theme in his public comments, the resonance of that event is slowly diminishing. The survivors of the two nuclear attacks are dwindling in number and the once regular anti-nuclear marches are seldom seen. The public mood has changed.

The question now is what impact Japan’s move will have on other countries. Most likely it will add some momentum to similar movements seen elsewhere. In the meantime, the message from Japan is this: we are heading back to what we told you once was the future, and then told you wasn’t; while not, of course, admitting that we shouldn’t have changed course in the first place.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/japans-nuclear-renaissance/

***********************************************

CA lacks the transmission lines needed to use all the renewable power it generates, resulting in lots of wastage

California's precariously out-of-date hybrid power grid can't handle the state's growing amounts of solar and wind energy coming online, with system managers already forcing repeated cutbacks in renewables and a continued reliance on conventional energy to keep the grid stable, according to state data.

The shortcomings of the transmission grid, which energy consultants in this bellwether state have warned about for years, raise the prospect that marquee products of the growing battery economy such as electric vehicles – "emission free" on the road – will be recharged mainly from traditional electricity-generating power plants: energy from fossil fuels, some of it from out of state.

Writ large, the transmission problem threatens the zero-carbon future envisioned by green advocates nationwide. “We’re headed toward duplicate systems whose only benefit is to permit the occasional use of ‘clean power,’” said Grant Ellis, an independent electrical engineering consultant in Texas.

California, along with the rest of the desert Southwest, is adding solar and wind installations at a rapid pace. The state is projected to add four gigawatts of utility-scale solar energy this year alone, enough to power 2.8 million homes. The question is whether that’s going to be enough.

So-called "curtailments" of renewable power have become much more frequent for the state’s blackout-prone power grid because the state hasn't constructed enough transmission lines, transformers, poles, and other infrastructure to keep up. The amount of renewable energy curtailed in California tripled between 2018 and 2021, according to operator statistics.

On top of the conventional power often deployed in its stead, that renewable power was thus wasted, since there is no place yet to store it. The state curtailed 596,175 megawatt hours in April, or 596,175 million kilowatt hours, according to several calculators. With 10,715 kilowatt hours the average annual electric consumption of a home in the U.S. in 2020, as calculated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California’s curtailed wind and solar energy in April could power 55,000 homes for a year.

The cutbacks mean that electric power generation falls back on nuclear and hydroelectric power, natural gas, and other more traditional sources, which provided nearly 60% of California's electric generation last year.

The state also imported 30% of its electric energy last year from other states – 9.5% of it from coal, most of it from the Intermountain Power Project in Utah.

The curtailments come at a crucial time in what the Biden administration insists is a “transition” from a fossil fuel-driven country to one that relies on renewable energy to save the planet from what believers warn will be a climate-change disaster.

Eric O’Shaughnessy, a renewable energy consultant who has worked with the federally funded Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, blames a stalemate between renewable energy providers and electric system operators over who will pay for any infrastructure buildout.

Transmission Agency of Northern California
This California agency estimates at least 10-15 years to develop a publicly funded renewable-energy transmission project.

“The system operators say, ‘We need this huge investment, and you are going to have to pay it,’ and the solar developer believes everyone should pay,” O’Shaughnessy said. Then politics comes into play “and that project gets shelved.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/25/heres_california_flooring_it_to_the_clean_energy_future__with_its_transmission_slipping_badly_849556.html

******************************************************

‘Fuel emissions standards’ just a costly leg-up for EVs

Judith Sloan

You have to hand it to the passenger motor vehicle industry – they are past masters at securing favours from governments. They have been doing it for decades – arguably it’s their core skill set.

When the US car companies got into trouble during the global financial crisis, the executives flew off to Washington in their private jets to plead with the Obama administration to be bailed out. Their request was granted.

Notwithstanding the fact that Volkswagen was involved in one of the largest corporate scandals ever – in relation to falsifying the emissions standards of their vehicles – the company remains a favourite of the German government as well as other governments around the world.

The reasons that the car industry holds sway with politicians are obvious. Most of us drive cars and car factories stand out and employ lots of people who are relatively well paid. There are both patriotic and masculinity aspects to cars – they need to be defended.

Car manufacturing in Australia lasted several decades in the context of extremely high rates of protection. Over time, the number of manufacturers shrank but at the end, the overseas-owned companies could not convince the federal government to continue to prop them up.

Australian consumers had paid dearly with high prices and a limited range of cars on offer. Some people might have loved their locally produced Holdens or Fords. But by dint of high tariffs and other measures (government-imposed quotas were favoured at one point), Australian drivers came off badly.

Just because we no longer produce cars here doesn’t mean that the multinational car companies have given up seeking to influence government policy to their benefit. And this is precisely what is happening with fuel emissions standards. Don’t think for a minute they are motivated by saving the planet; it’s all about ensuring that what is decided yields their company the best commercial result.

It’s why there is actually an all-mighty spat going on between the premium European car companies which are represented by the Electric Vehicle Council and the companies that supply the bulk of cars for income-constrained customers – Toyota and Mazda, in particular – which are represented by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The European car companies are led by VW – there’s an irony there. Their aim is to kill off the push to hybrid vehicles, preferring instead for government policy to leapfrog the hybrid phase and head straight to fully electric vehicles, something which they specialise in. (Mind you, given that VW is essentially paid by the German government to produce fully electric vehicles, it’s hardly surprising that the company made the switch away from internal combustion engine vehicles.)

FCAI, by contrast, sees hybrids as being a popular and convenient stepping-stone to accommodate lower net emissions arising from car transport. (It accounts for around 10 per cent of our total emissions.) According to its modelling, fully electric vehicles will make up less than 20 per cent of new car sales in 2030, with a further quarter internal combustion and the remaining hybrids.

The preferred government modelling and one also favoured by the EVC is that over 90 per cent of new cars sales will be fully EV by 2030. (In their dreams, by the way.) The EVC is lobbying to make sure that only plug-in hybrids are counted in this percentage, thereby serving the interests of its members. (Most hybrids at this stage are not plug-in.)

Where do fuel emissions standards come into this argument? Before answering this question, it needs to be pointed out that Labor rejected changing these standards as part of its election manifesto. That’s right – any changes were explicitly ruled out. But this has not stopped Climate Change Minister, Chris Bowen, from effectively reneging on this pledge and opening the issue up for discussion. In other words, expect changes to fuel standards very soon. (Didn’t I warn you about Bowen (and Burke)?)

The push is on from the EVC to insist that Australia comply with European emissions standards – referred to as Euro 6 – which, incidentally will provide a massive commercial boost to its members. The shift is opposed by the FCAI. This standard puts a maximum of 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre driven by passenger motor vehicles. Most of Australia’s most popular current vehicles have emissions in excess of 200 grams per kilometre.

But here’s the important feature to note – the way these new emissions standards will work is that each manufacturer must comply with a Corporate Average Fuel Emissions figure. In this way, the manufacturers cross-subsidise the sales of their EVS while jacking up the price of popular cars on the Australian roads. This suits the premium European car manufacturers to a tee, but will hurt the average driver who requires an affordable vehicle combined with convenience.

When Bowen summarily rejected the idea that these new fuel emissions standards are the equivalent of a sector carbon tax, he was dead wrong. That’s what it is, that’s what its intention is.

There is another major complication to the insistence on Euro 6 in Australia and that is that our two remaining refineries are not in a position to comply at this point of time. There has been considerable progress with the sulphur issue and a solution is now likely by 2024. But the problem of aromatics has not been solved. Additions of ethanol would help but would also significantly add to the price of petrol, which wouldn’t be politically popular.

You might imagine the resulting closure of the refineries would weigh on Bowen’s thinking – on national security grounds, at the very least – but there is little doubt that some of his advisers and the bureaucrats will be telling him not to worry too much. Just think of the contribution to the reduction in our national emissions that their closure would involve!

So where do consumer preferences fit into this policy about-face? The reality is that very many Australians, particularly those living in outer metropolitan and regional areas, are quite rightly attached to their powerful ICE cars and spending five minutes max to fill them up. The last thing they want is to pay top dollar for an EV and wait hours to charge it up, having driven around to find an available charger.

But consumer preferences won’t count for much when Bowen thinks he is saving the planet but is actually being conned by lobbyists. More sighing.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/fuel-emissions-standards-just-a-costly-leg-up-for-evs

**************************************************************

Coal mine would ‘improve’ Barrier reef, Australian mining company claims

Clive Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project would actually improve the quality of the Great Barrier Reef, would help retain Marlborough’s sole remaining paramedic and create “more jobs per hectare” than the reef does, the billionaire’s company claims in a surprising official response to mine’s rejection.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek earlier this month refused the coal mine on a number of reasons, including that it is only 10km from the Great Barrier Reef.

In its official objection to the mine’s refusal, obtained by The Courier-Mail, Mr Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project claims this reason is “emotive and misleading”.

“Singling out our Companies and Directors within our group is unfair treatment by the Government and in particular the Labour (sic) Governments within the Commonwealth and the State,” the document stated.

It stated that while the mine is 10km from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, it is 192km from the actual reef itself.

In a unique argument, it says that while the reef generates $6.4 billion a year to the economy of 64,000 jobs, the objection says this is spread out of 3.44 million ha.

“The CQC proposed mining lease extends over 1915ha and generates up to $3.1 billion per year and 500 full-time jobs,” the document stated.

“This equates to the Great Barrier Reef generating $1858 per ha, whereas CQC generates up to $1,618,799 per ha being an 871 times multiplier.

“Similar logic applied to jobs presents a 14 times multiplier.”

Levees to be constructed as part of the mine mean there will be less sediment run off and “the current Great Barrier Reef will be protected and water quality improved”, the document claimed.

Earlier this week, Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef Senator Nita Green said Mr Palmer had to pass the same environmental approvals as anyone else.

“I have not seen the reasons for the proposed decision, but I am fully aware that poor water quality is an ongoing risk to the Reef and the jobs it supports. It’s up to any proponent to show how they can mitigate such risks,” Senator Green said.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/jobs-per-hectare-clive-palmers-unique-response-to-coal-mine-refusal/news-story/796eee8b60ffc79d686aa5fa867d5dca

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



26 August, 2022

How salmon numbers rise and fall during El Nino and La Nina

Greenies shriek when salmon numbers fall but it is part of a natural cycle

Nate Mantua, Climate Scientist at NOAA Fisheries, explains how salmon numbers rise and fall during El Nino and La Nina.

It’s one of the most iconic shots in nature documentaries: salmon, in slow-motion, leaping above rushing river rapids and dodging the open jowls of hungry bears, all for the sake of reaching their nesting grounds.

Their treacherous journey is a tale as old as time. But outside of a bear’s voracious appetite, another factor can impact the salmon’s journey and the survivability of the fish they spawn: the weather.

In the United States, salmon are primarily found in the waters of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Given the coastal nature of these regions, the weather they experience is largely dictated by the conditions of the Pacific Ocean.

Oceanic temperature changes, in particular, create certain weather conditions that can have a significant effect on the amount and quality of cold water in salmon habitats. This, in turn, affects the health and numbers of salmon.

The role of El Niño and La Niña

Oceanic temperatures and weather changes are driven by extreme weather cycles known as El Nino and La Nina.

El Nino is a cyclical climate pattern that sees the warming of ocean waters around the tropics. In contrast, La Niña is a cyclical climate pattern that sees a cooling of tropical ocean waters.

These cooling and warming events cause ripple effects throughout the Pacific Ocean and around the world.

"This is a phenomenon that's totally natural — it's been happening for hundreds of thousands of years," said Nate Mantua, a research scientist in NOAA's Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

"It's something that scientists got excited about decades ago because it affects so much of the earth's climate and it also affects the oceans and marine life and fisheries in sometimes unpredictable ways."

One of those ways involves the size of salmon populations in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

According to Mantua, in Alaska, El Nino typically brings a milder and wetter winter with more snowmelt and rain-fed runoff. This runoff feeds the waterways with plenty of cold water, creating prime habitat for breeding in freshwater and improved ocean conditions for salmon once they go to sea.

But further south in the Pacific Northwest, Mantua said this same El Nino event brings a warmer and drier winter, along with a warmer ocean.

This means that less snow falls, creating a smaller snowpack in the mountains during winter; and because of the small snowpack during an El Nino winter, when spring arrives, there is less snow for the warmer temperatures to melt. This creates less cold water flowing into the watersheds, which leads to a degradation in the freshwater habitat for salmon.

During a La Nina year, the effects on each location are reversed.

According to Mantua, the colder ocean currents disfavor Alaska salmon by bringing in a drier winter, while benefiting salmon in the Pacific Northwest by bringing in colder storms and heavier snowpacks to the region’s mountains.

"The ocean currents and ocean temperatures tend to change in ways that also make it more productive and more of a cold water subarctic ocean food web, where salmon grow faster and survive at higher rates and come back in bigger numbers," Mantua said.

https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/salmon-el-nino-la-nina?mc_cid=0e1d8c6ecd&mc_eid=cc88839e92

********************************************

Empirical observations show no sign of ‘climate crisis’

A systematic review of climate trends and observational data by an eminent climate scientist has found no evidence to support the claim of a climate crisis.

In his annual State of the Climate report, Ole Humlum, emeritus professor at the University of Oslo, examined detailed patterns in temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans together with trends in climate impacts. Many of these show no significant trends and suggest that poorly understood natural cycles are involved.

And while the report finds gentle warming, there is no evidence of dramatic changes, with snow cover stable, sea ice levels recovering, and no change in storm activity.

Professor Humlum said:

“A year ago, I warned that there was great risk in using computer modelling and immature science to make extraordinary claims. The empirical observations I have reviewed show very gentle warming and no evidence of a climate crisis.”

GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

“It’s extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends document just how little has been changing in the last 30 years. The habitual climate alarmism is mainly driven by scientists’ computer modelling rather than observational evidence.”

https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/empirical-observations-show-no-sign-of-climate-crisis/?mc_cid=0e1d8c6ecd&mc_eid=cc88839e92

*************************************************

Politicians should let the market solve the energy crisis

What policies should the government adopt in response to the energy crisis? When thinking about any policy, the correct place to start is to consider what kinds of solutions the market would produce absent any government intervention.

Markets will always produce some kind of answer, and the market answer will often be very good in many respects. Policymakers should not assume they are intervening in a void, where almost any well-intentioned action might be better than nothing. Instead, they should always be more humble, seeking to understand what the market might do, accept that the market response is likely to be pretty good, and think about how, if at all, they can make that market response better and how to be careful not to impede the good features that a market response would produce.

In the case of the energy crisis, let’s imagine that the market is left alone, and believes the government will not interfere. In this scenario, there would be a huge effort to create and collect more energy, because of the very high prices at present. Households and businesses would use less energy if they could. This would almost certainly still leave many households with a large gap between their incomes and their expenditures. So workers would demand higher wages to pay their bills, either from their current employers or in a new job. Some workers would get these wage rises; others would lose their jobs. Some households would still find that, even after cutting back on their energy usage and perhaps getting a wage rise, they would still face shortfalls. If they felt these shortfalls were temporary (perhaps because energy prices might fall back in future or perhaps because, given longer, households might be able to cut back more or raise their incomes more) they might be able to borrow from the private sector to cover the gap. Businesses facing similar shortfalls would most likely do the same, as long as they were able to get a loan.

The above set of market solutions would have many good features. There would be strong incentives to create as much new energy as possible as quickly as possible and to cut back where feasible. The most productive workers would get salary rises. Workers in the wrong jobs or businesses that were unviable would be forced out and that labour and capital would be released for more productive uses. Savers would have the opportunity to lend to households and business that would be viable longer-term, getting a return on those loans.

What a government should want is for all the above to occur, but with the poor protected by benefits rising with their costs, and with some macroeconomic smoothing via reduced tax rises or tax cuts. What a government should not want (should absolutely not want) is for the above process to be stopped altogether or be mainly replaced by government action.

Where the government should intervene is in benefits for low-income households. Benefits and benefits thresholds currently rise in line with inflation anyway. But inflation as measured by the CPI index does not accurately reflect the cost rises lower-income households experience. A different measure should be used. And, whereas annual benefits rising each April is adequate when inflation is low, with inflation now so high this needs to be more frequent. Benefits will need to rise in October, and to do so to a level that anticipates some of the inflation rises over the winter, so benefits recipients can cover their bills.

For average income households, however, there should not be any special benefits. Neither should the energy price rise be suppressed by the government capping the price and subsidising energy retailers. Denying economic reality by paying subsidies to shield consumers from inflation is the short road to economic ruin.

High energy prices mean economic pain for us all. We cannot pretend that away. Engaging in massive borrowing to stop the price mechanism from telling us the truth – that we should all be using less energy if we can and those able to should create as much new energy as they can – will not make that unpleasant truth go away. And if we do not allow the price mechanism to ration our energy use and guide energy use to where it is most economically effective, we may well end up with rationing instead.

There is probably going to be a recession. To help with that, the government can avoid raising taxes as much as currently scheduled, at least temporarily. It may even be able to reduce some taxes. There is inflation, so interest rates must rise. Macroeconomic management is the right response to a recession, not manipulation of individual prices.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/politicians-should-let-the-market-solve-the-energy-crisis

***************************************************

Australia: Government releases 10 sites for oil and gas exploration, angering crossbench

A surprise from a Leftist government

The federal government will release a further 10 sites for exploration for new oil and gas projects off the coasts of Victoria, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, triggering rebukes from crossbench senators who say it doesn’t align with the government’s own climate goals.

Industry Minister Madeleine King announced the release of the sites, totalling 46,758 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters, on Wednesday saying it would play an important role in securing future energy supplies.

“The annual release of areas for offshore petroleum exploration supports ongoing investment in the nation’s petroleum sector, which is vital for the economy and meeting the energy needs of Australians,” King said.

“At the same time as we strive to reduce emissions it must be emphasised that continued exploration for oil and gas in Commonwealth waters is central to alleviating future domestic gas shortfalls.”

The new sites are in Commonwealth waters in 10 areas, including Victoria’s Gippsland basin and Western Australia’s Carnarvon basin.

Australia remains a net exporter of gas, and imports much of its oil due to the lack domestic of oil refinery capacity.

According to an analysis by the International Energy Agency last year the world cannot build any new oil and gas projects if it expects to meet Paris Agreement climate goals.

Senator David Pocock said on Wednesday night he was concerned the government was pursuing “business as usual” with the oil and gas industry given the IEA’s analysis and the government’s own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the release of the sites “made a mockery” of its own climate targets with the announcement.

“We already have enough oil and gas in reserves to trigger catastrophic climate change to our planet,” he said.

He noted that the Morrison government had stopped the controversial Pep-11 exploration off the coast of NSW due to community concerns and that while in opposition Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had agreed it should be halted.

“If opposing fossil fuel exploration due to community and environmental concerns was good enough for NSW, then it is sheer hypocrisy not to do the same for coastlines right around Australia,” Whish-Wilson said.

Anthony Albanese declared an “end to the climate wars” after Climate Minister Chris Bowen negotiated support for Labor’s 43 per cent target to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which was approved by the new House of Representatives at the start of August.

But King’s announcement follows warnings from Greens’ leader Adam Bandt and Pocock that they will use their casting votes in the Senate to enforce the target by opposing any legislation that approves high-polluting new projects.

King also announced the approval of two sites for greenhouse gasses to be stored underground in offshore geological formations as part of potential future carbon capture and storage projects.

“Carbon capture and storage has a vital role to play to help Australia meet its net zero targets,” she said.

Climate scientists and activists argue that despite billions being spent, large-scale carbon, capture and storage has never worked commercially.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/government-releases-ten-sites-for-oil-and-gas-exploration-angering-crossbench-20220824-p5bcit.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



25 August, 2022

Greenies have suceeded in making use less energy, mainly by making it more expensive

Since about 2005, and in almost every Western economy, something historically unprecedented and extremely alarming has been happening to energy consumption: it’s either flatlining or in decline. This remarkable but little discussed fact is jeopardising almost every aspect of our public policy, from climate change mitigation, through national security to societal progression itself. President Biden’s plans to vastly increase spending on renewables such as wind and solar through the Inflation Reduction Act are grabbing the headlines, and it’s not hard to see why, but they may actually be counterproductive, and in any case are overshadowed by the sweeping macroscopic trend of falling Western demand for energy.

According to data collected by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, total energy consumption in the UK, for example, is back at levels not seen since the 1950s; there has been a 30 percent decline from its peak in 2003, which is astonishing given that the population has increased by 12.5 percent, to 67 million, over the same period.

According to the European Environment Agency, energy consumption in the EU stalled with the financial crisis of 2008, has fallen by about 13 percent from the peak of 2006 and is now at levels not seen since before 1990. Even in North America, energy consumption is stagnant. Post-2007, total energy consumption in the United States fell substantially and then flatlined, falling again because of the pandemic, and, by 2020, it had lost about 13 percent of the 2007 high. Some of that lost demand was recovered in 2021, as public health restrictions were lifted, but it remains to be seen whether demand will return even to the earlier flatline levels. Canadian demand is faltering similarly. Across the Pacific, Australia has shown weak to non-existent growth in demand since 2008 and Japanese energy demand has fallen by over 20 percent from its 2004 peak.

Energy use not only includes electricity, but also other areas of consumption including transport, heating and cooking. - Our World in Data

This pattern applies not only to energy consumption in general but also to the consumption of electricity. Since the 2005 peak, UK electricity consumption has fallen by about 20 percent to levels last seen in the early 1990s. Reduction in the consumption of a form of energy that is a key indicator of a modern society is not a good sign.

Some will reasonably ask, “Isn’t reduced energy demand, even for electricity, just evidence of increased efficiency?” Counterintuitively, the answer is “No.” In fact, greater energy efficiency in one domain merely provides energy for consumption in another. Energy efficiency will either increase demand for the now-cheaper good or service or, if demand for the good or service cannot increase rapidly, the saved energy will be economised to improve the quality of life in another sector, and so total energy consumption will tend to rise.

The money you’ve saved by switching to energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances can now be spent on a holiday or a new Tesla, or, much further up the chain, to improve higher-level societal goods such as new roads, better healthcare, or stronger military defence. Energy, like cash, is never left on the table. There is no obvious limit to improvements to our wellbeing—and energy provides the means.

So, what is causing Western energy consumption to collapse? Regrettably, it is due to environmental policy and its far-reaching unintended consequences. Of these interventions, the most damaging are emissions trading schemes and the unprecedented investment in renewable energy, both of which are significantly increasing consumer costs and causing consumption to plummet. The EU’s emissions trading scheme adds about €17 billion a year to energy costs within the bloc, and the UK’s newly independent version is expected to cost a staggering €6.7 billion in the current financial year.

In addition to this, the EU has spent an incredible €800 billion providing income support to renewables since 2008, a total that is still increasing at €69 billion a year. The UK alone is paying over €12 billion every year topping up incomes for wind and solar. So far, the US is a relatively minor player, having spent a mere €120 billion from 2008 to 2018, which is probably part of the reason that things are not as bad on that side of the Atlantic.

The expectation was that these subsidies would bring down the cost of renewable energy and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases at an affordable cost. Both hopes have been disappointed. Capital and particularly operating costs have remained stubbornly high, while grid system management costs are rising sharply. Because green electricity is still extremely expensive, the cost of preventing the emission of a tonne of carbon dioxide by switching to wind or solar vastly exceeds even high-end estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon, which is a monetised value of the harm done to human welfare by the climate change arising from that carbon dioxide. The conclusion is obvious. The cure is worse than the disease.

The intentions may have been good, but by committing these vast subsidies to renewables, politicians have failed to provide an economically compelling example of a low-carbon energy transition and have succeeded only in making energy much more expensive, resulting in price-rationing and falling consumption.

Energy isn’t a substance like coal or oil; rather, it is an abstract property of all substances, namely the capacity to cause change in the world—to do work, a potential measured in joules.

Joules can be realised as a property of the chemical bonds in fossil fuels, the forces holding an atom together, moving objects such as flowing wind or water, electromagnetic solar radiation, and objects acting on each other through gravity. All have the capacity to cause change, but this capacity varies in both quantity, which is intuitively obvious, and much more importantly, its quality, its ability to do work, to change the world, and here the mind is particularly weak in grasping the essentials. Yes, there is a large quantity of energy in the sunshine and in the wind blowing around the globe. But that energy is of very low quality and not available to do much useful work. There is also a great deal of energy in the vibrating atoms in the objects around you in the room as you read this article, or in falling raindrops—lots of energy, yet all basically useless. Wind and sunlight are only a little better.

There is a reason why no creatures make a living by extracting energy from the wind—the quality level is just too low—and there is a reason that the organisms that manage to build lives from solar energy, plants, are relatively simple and, generally speaking, stationary. There is only so much you can do with a low-quality form of energy like solar radiation at the surface of the Earth. Creatures that eat plants can be more complex; creatures that eat herbivores can be more complex still.

https://quillette.com/2022/08/24/the-energy-of-nations/

*****************************************************

Energy panic engulfs Europe as power prices smash new record

European gas and power prices surged as panic over Russian supplies gripped markets and politicians warned citizens to brace for a tough winter ahead.

Benchmark gas settled at a record high, while German power surged to above 700 euros ($696) a megawatt-hour for the first time. Russia said it will stop its key Nord Stream gas pipeline for three days of repairs on Aug. 31, again raising concerns it won’t return after the work. Europe has been on tenterhooks about shipments through the link for weeks, with flows resuming only at very low levels after it was shut for works last month.

“The catastrophe is already there,” Thierry Bros, a professor in international energy at Sciences Po in Paris, said. “I think the major question is when EU leaders are going to wake up.”

In one of the most dire warnings yet, Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said Europe could face up to 10 difficult winters. It would put sustained stress on major economies and leave thousands of households struggling to pay their bills. Concerns over the economy pushed the euro currency to a two-decade low on Monday, while inflation is at the highest in years.

Europe finds itself in a precarious situation with the official start of the winter heating season just over a month away. Nations are rushing to fill storage sites, but they are still heavily dependent on Russian gas and any further cutbacks could make rationing a reality.

French President Emmanuel Macron warned people of the potential hardships in the coming months, and asked them to “accept paying the price for our freedom and our values,” he said in a speech Friday commemorating the liberation of a town in southern France in World War II.

Germany’s circumstances are particularly urgent: the country’s dependence on Russian gas leaves it vulnerable as it desperately searches for alternative supplies. The nation is considering restarting coal-fired power plants and may extend the life of remaining nuclear power plants, while urging gas conservation. Industries in Europe’s biggest economy are already take a major hit.

“Being the powerhouse of Europe, the combination of industrial exposure, married with energy intensive industries, means that there could be a significant hit to Germany as the crisis continues,” said Martin Devenish, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. managing director who now works for S-RM Intelligence & Risk Consulting Ltd. “The currency markets are already pricing in a fair amount of risk in Europe, and that’s partly energy related”.

If the energy crisis worsens, a recession is likely next winter, Bundesbank Chief Joachim Nagel said over the weekend. Further gas supply cuts could be coming, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said, reiterated a call to conserve energy. “We have a very critical winter right in front of us,” he told public broadcaster ZDF in Montreal, during a visit to Canada with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. “We must expect Putin to further reduce gas.”

On Friday, Gazprom said works are needed in the only functioning turbine that can pump gas into Nord Stream. The pipeline has been operating at only 20% capacity for weeks and European politicians insist the curbs are politically motivated. Russia’s Gazprom PJSC said volumes would return to that level following the latest shutdown.

“The market may disregard Gazprom’s comments and start to consider whether the pipeline may not return to service, or at the very least may be delayed for any given reason,” said Biraj Borkhataria, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/europe-gas-jumps-as-supply-fears-return-with-planned-pipe-works?mc_cid=25acbbb482&mc_eid=cc88839e92#xj4y7vzkg

***************************************

New study cautions over-interpreting influence of climate on cultural change and catastrophe

El Nino has been a major driver of societal collapse, various catastrophes and cultural change in coastal Peru for millenia, but it isn’t the only culprit. In a new study, University of Maine researchers warn against over-interpreting the role climatic change, like an El Nino event, plays in societal and cultural transition.

Dan Sandweiss, a professor in the Anthropology Department and Climate Change Institute, and Kirk Maasch, a professor in the School of Earth and Climate Sciences and the Climate Change Institute, investigated whether climate influenced the abandonment of three sites in the Lambayeque Valley in northern Peru: Pampa Grande not long after 750 A.D., Batán Grande in 1100 A.D. and Túcume, America’s largest pyramid center, between 1532 and 1547 A.D. Sandweiss excavated Túcume in collaboration with Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl in the 1990s.

All three sites were major centers of Andean society at their time, and large adobe and fill mounds in each site were burned when they were abandoned. Pampa Grande covered 600 acres and centered around the mound Huaca Fortaleza. Batán Grande had eight large mounds. Túcume spanned 200 hectares with 13 major mounds and several dozen smaller structures, according to researchers.

Sandweiss and Maasch analyzed data from three proxy records for climate change and El Nino activity to determine whether they occurred around the same time as the abandonment of these sites. Those records included an ice core from the Quelccaya ice cap in southern Peru, a marine sediment core from the coast and a lake sediment record from Pallcacocha in highland Ecuador.

The data showed that climate contributed to the abandonment of Pampa Grande and Batán Grande, but not Túcume, which resulted from the Spanish conquest. The new study also revealed associations between the abandonment of Pampa Grande and Batán Grande and El Nino, albeit at different degrees of intensity.

“Our study shows that equifinality — similar outcomes from different causes — likely happened in Peruvian prehistory,” says Maasch. “This urges caution in seeing a single process such as climate change as the prime driver of all abrupt change.”

Ice core and marine and lake sediment core records showed that the abandonment of Pampa Grande occurred during the onset of the Medieval Warm Period, a time of extreme drought and a strong peak in El Nino intensity, according to researchers. The abandonment of Batán Grande happened at the latter end of the Medieval Warm Period during a drought and when there was a small peak in El Nino intensity. After both sites were abandoned, El Nino intensity diminished and new mound centers were built, researchers say.

Civilizations along the Peruvian Coast experience several different types of El Nino. Researchers theorize that the abandonment of Pampa Grande and Batán Grande occurred during a Central Pacific El Nino, which is known for causing drought in areas of the Andean Highlands like the Lambayeque Valley.

Sandweiss and Maasch previously found connections between climate and cultural change in early Peruvian civilizations, particularly during initial monument construction in 5800 B.P., at the end of the Late Preceramic Period around 3800–3600 B.P., and at the conclusion of the Initial Period temple tradition at 2850 B.P. The climatic pattern has brought extreme weather conditions that decimate agricultural infrastructure, depress fisheries, usher in disease and damage archaeological resources in northern Peru, and it continues to threaten the region’s economy and culture.

“When we began working on the Peruvian coast, we saw El Nino events as unmitigated disasters,” says Sandweiss. “Thanks to more recent work by many colleagues and studies like this one, we now have a better understanding of the resilience of ancient Peruvians in the face of climatic and other catastrophes. Along with technological responses, ideological changes such as site abandonment were part of the cultural repertoire for dealing with disaster.”

Sandweiss has spent decades conducting pioneering research on the origins of El Nino and fluctuations of its frequency and intensity over time. He also is credited with discovering variation in the frequency of El Nino events during the Holocene (the last 11,400 years) and, in the process, demonstrating the value of archaeological remains as records of past climates and early maritime adaptations.

His work on El Nino has provided seminal contributions to the field and provided a scientific foundation for exploring the impact of climatic disasters on cultural change in the Andes.

https://umaine.edu/news/blog/2022/08/17/new-study-cautions-over-interpreting-influence-of-climate-on-cultural-change-and-catastrophe/

**************************************

Unbelievable: Application to develop gas field rejected by Australian government as "not in the national interest"

The new federal Environment Minister has rejected a partially Rinehart-owned company’s bid to fast-track Queensland gas fields.

A company part-owned by mining magnate Gina Reinhart has been denied a request to fast-track federal environment approvals so it can tap into undeveloped Queensland gas fields it bought at the end of 2021.

Senex, a joint venture between South Korean steel giant Posco and Reinhart’s Hancock Energy, asked the federal environment minister in March 2022 to let it develop two Queensland gas fields without going through the usual environmental approvals process.

Senex argued an exemption would be in the national interest because it would allow Senex to develop the acreage quickly, and aid Australia’s domestic gas supply and energy security issues.

An exemption request is meant to be dealt with within 20 days, but the minister at the time — Sussan Ley — did not make a decision by the deadline of April 21.

New federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek, in a decision published late on Monday, said granting the exemption was not in the national interest.

“Having considered all the available information, I have decided not to grant Senex Energy’s requested exemption under the EPBC Act. I was not satisfied that such an exemption was in the national interest,” she said.

“Exempting this proposal from the requirements of the EPBC Act would not provide short-term relief to east-coast gas customers, given that gas supply from this project is at least 15 months away.

“I also understand that given the scale of the project and what is already known about the site, any assessment process under the EPBC Act is likely to be relatively straightforward.”

Senex announced last November it had entered into a binding agreement with Australia Pacific LNG to acquire two undeveloped gas fields in the Surat Basin, right next to its existing holdings.

The tenements, PL209 and PL445, were meant to have an estimated 184PJ of gas and an additional 600PJ though this needed “future appraisal”.

“Initial acquisition cost of $50 million, with a further $30 million payment upon receipt of satisfactory Commonwealth environmental approvals, funded from an acquisition bridge facility and existing cash and debt facilities,” the company stated at the time.

Senex, on August 11, announced a major $1bn expansion of its Queensland gas field, noting it would pump enough resources into the domestic market to cover 40 per cent of the state’s needs.

Chief executive Ian Davies on the day said the project had approvals for two of the three areas which required it and was working on securing the green light for the final acreage.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/qld-politics/senex-application-to-fasttrack-qld-gas-field-developments-rejected/news-story/26b1d77384a7dc089a15f5b5e2840de0

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



August 24, 2022

You Can Be Sure That Net Zero Carbon Emissions From Electricity Generation Will Never Be Achieved. Here's Why

The currently-proclaimed goal of the climate movement is to achieve “Net Zero” economy-wide carbon emissions by 2050, if not sooner. The governments of essentially all the Western countries with the most advanced economies have committed, in one form or another, to achieve this goal. (OK, in the EU there are a few laggards among the former Soviet satellites, but then it is questionable how advanced their economies are.). Many of these countries with Net Zero commitments have even earlier goals, often in the 2030s, for achievement of Net Zero emissions from electricity generation. And the electricity generation sector is clearly the easiest part of an economy to get to Net Zero. Surely, if all of the countries with the best technology and the most sophisticated governments say that this Net Zero thing can be done in short order in the electricity sector, then it can be done and it will be done.

In fact, it will not be done. Not just will Net Zero in electricity generation not be achieved worldwide by 2050 or any time close to that, but it also won’t be achieved in any individual country, no matter how committed to the Net Zero goal that country may currently seem to be. If you have any doubt about that, I suggest looking to some of the following indicators:

There is a total absence in the entire world of any functioning Net Zero demonstration project.

It is truly astounding how many seemingly sophisticated governments have made the Net Zero electricity commitment without there existing anywhere in the world a demonstration project showing how this can be done and at what cost. Historically, major innovations in provision of energy have begun with demonstration projects or prototypes to establish the feasibility and cost of the endeavor, before any attempt at widespread commercialization to a full state or country.

Thus in the 1880s, when Thomas Edison wanted to start building central station power plants to supply electricity for his new devices like incandescent lightbulbs, he began by building a prototype facility in London under the Holborn Viaduct, and followed that with a larger demonstration plant on Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan that supplied electricity to only a few square blocks. Only after those had been demonstrated as successful did a larger build-out begin. Similarly, the provision of nuclear power began with small government-funded prototypes in the late 1940s and early 1950s, followed by larger demonstration projects in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Only in the late 1960s, twenty years into the effort and after feasibility and cost had been demonstrated, were the first large-scale commercial nuclear reactors built.

Today there is no such thing anywhere in the world and on any scale, whether large or small, as a functioning wind/solar electricity system that functions free of full fossil fuel backup, or even close to that. The few places that have made attempts at fully wind/solar/storage systems have fallen woefully short, and at this point are not even trying to bridge the remaining gap to get to Net Zero.

Commenters on some of my recent posts have referred to the projects on some small islands like El Hierro (one of Spain’s Canary Islands, population about 10,000) or King Island (off Tasmania in Australia, population about 1500). But those projects only serve to illustrate how far short efforts toward Net Zero have fallen, and how enormous would be the costs to go the remaining distance. I have previously covered the El Hierro project multiple times, for example here and here.

The bottom line for El Hierro is that it has wind turbines with supposed “capacity” of more than double average demand (but which operate at annual capacity factors of under 40%), and also a pumped-storage facility with hydro generators for more than double average demand, and also back-up diesel generators for more than double average demand – three separate and redundant systems, all of which must be paid for. And for all that, they struggle to get half of their electricity from the wind/storage system, averaged over the year. And they must retain the full diesel backup, fully maintained and ready to go, for the regular times, even in the windiest months, when the wind fails to blow.

The operator of the wind/storage system on El Hierro, Gorona del Viento, has a website where data from the island are published (although the most recent data are from September 2021). In 2021, the island got 28% of its electricity from the wind/storage system in January (and the rest from the diesel backup), 36% in February, 48% in March, 21% in April, 77% in May, 72% in June, 81% in July, 59% in August, and 34% in September. The cover page of the Gorona del Viento report brags that the island had 1293 hours in 2020 when it got all of its electricity from the wind/storage system. How embarrassing is that? — there being 8784 hours in a leap year like 2020.

If Net Zero emissions electricity generation could be achieved for a major economy like the U.S. or Germany or the UK or Japan by 2050, or for that matter by 2035, there would be a functioning demonstration project operating today that achieves that goal. In fact, there is nothing that comes close, and nothing on the horizon.

Every wind turbine or solar panel that gets built depends on a government subsidy

The U.S. Congress has just passed its big climate subsidy act (is it still called the Inflation Reduction Act?), containing some $370 billion of subsidies of various sorts for “green” energy projects, predominantly wind and solar generation facilities, but also things like electric cars and electric heat systems for homes. Undoubted, this will get a lot of wind turbines and solar panels built, and electric cars bought and heat pumps installed.

But here’s the rub. Nobody builds any wind turbine or solar panel, or any other element of this new “green” energy utopia, based on the usual capitalist motivations of making a profit by fulfilling organic consumer demand. Crony capitalists will undoubtedly emerge to build something to collect the subsidies, but they have no particular incentive to put together all elements of a system that works. Who does have that incentive? Nobody, except maybe government central planners — a category that has never had a success in the history of the world.

For a few examples of bottlenecks to come, here is a piece in something called The Conversation from August 19, title “Big new incentives for clean energy aren’t enough – the Inflation Reduction Act was just the first step, now the hard work begins,” by Daniel Cohan of Rice University. Cohan points to one missing element after another of the supposedly coming new green energy system, each one of which will require its own new massive government subsidies:

Wind and solar farms won’t be built without enough power lines to connect their electricity to customers. Captured carbon and clean hydrogen won’t get far without pipelines. Too few contractors are trained to install heat pumps. And EV buyers will think twice if there aren’t enough charging stations.

Etc., etc., etc. When gasoline-powered cars became a thing in the early 1900s, thousands of entrepreneurs sprung into action, without government subsidies of any kind, to set up gas stations all across the country to keep the cars running. Now, people are waiting around for the government handouts that may or may not come, or may be insufficient, to set up the charging stations. Supposedly the Congress is going to come through with hundreds of billions more in subsidies just when needed for all of these things (and twenty more such that nobody has thought of yet), along with an all-knowing bureaucracy to coordinate it all. No government has that level of competency, or ever will.

We’re watching Europe hit the green energy wall in real time

The major European countries, like Germany and the UK, are just now coming up on the position that El Hierro has been in since its system opened in 2014. That is, Germany and the UK have plenty of “nameplate” capacity of wind and solar generators to supply all the electricity they need when the wind is blowing and the sun shining, and even excess at times of full wind and sun. But they have no non-fossil-fuel plan for the regularly-occurring times of low wind and sun. This problem cannot be solved by building more wind and solar facilities.

Here’s a report on the latest from the UK from City AM, August 17:

Based on current forecasts, clean energy specialist Squeaky has calculated that UK industry could be hit with £49.2bn bill for wholesale gas and electricity costs combined in 2023. Overall, this is a 260 per cent increase from the industry’s energy bill in 2021.

Price increases to consumers for electricity and gas have been even higher in percentage terms. And here’s the latest from Germany, from something called the Local, August 17:

Coal is experiencing a comeback on several fronts in Europe’s top economy. A looming shortage of Russian gas in the wake of the Ukraine war has reignited enthusiasm for this method of heating private homes despite its sooty residue and heavy carbon footprint.

Nobody in Europe thought to make a plan for the non-fossil fuel backup to get to Net Zero electricity generation.

So if you have a chance to make a bet, you’ll be extremely safe betting against Net Zero generation of electricity any time during your life. Nuclear is the only way it could potentially be done, and that’s blocked by regulatory obstruction more or less everywhere.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-8-22-you-can-be-sure-that-net-zero-carbon-emissions-from-electricity-generation-will-never-be-achieved-heres-why?mc_cid=25acbbb482&mc_eid=cc88839e92

*********************************************

UK industry faces energy SHUTDOWN – leaked memo exposes horror scenario for next PM

"Project Shine" was first commissioned by the Treasury last year as fears around rising energy prices began to rise due to the pandemic.

Two sources cited by Bloomberg have now revealed that briefings by the project warned ministers of the approaching disaster in November 2021 - well ahead of Putin's invasion of Ukraine, which has exacerbated the crisis.

The briefings informed ministers that industries including chemical and fertilizer manufacturers were particularly at risk, and faced having to slow down their operations or shut down entirely due to increased operating costs.

The warnings raise concerns about Mr Johnson's heeding of their warnings, as well as questions about how the next PM will respond.

British industry is not protected by a price cap on energy like households, leaving heavy electricity users such as shops and restaurants vulnerable to shifts in the wholesale energy market.

Sources add that a plan had been drawn up to extend a subsidy program to alleviate the issue, with funding proposals including through taxation or a levy on household energy bills.

However, it appears neither will be introduced by the current government, with one of the sources claiming it will be up to Mr Johnson's successor to decide whether to make changes necessary to save struggling businesses.

The government this month announced a consultation on other potential ways to reduce electricity bills for industries.

A spokesperson for the Government defended its response to last year's warnings.

They pointed to the £145million of extra support given to energy-intensive industries in April 2022.

This intervention came after the invasion of Ukraine pushed prices even higher.

The spokesperson added: "Ministers and officials continue to engage constructively and regularly with industry and our priority is to ensure costs are managed and supplies of energy are maintained".

Fertiliser industries are of particular concern due to a combination of high prices and lower demand, as well as high manufacturing costs.

For some manufacturers, energy bills take up 12 percent of their cost.

The knock-on effect of higher prices for fertiliser piles on alreayd surging operational costs for farmers - leading in turn to higher food prices.

Ministers were reportedly told that some chemical and fertilizer companies faced site closures or slowdowns without state intervention or a change in circumstances.

Cold storage represents another key issue, due both to the high electricity costs involved and a higher demand for storage in Britain following Brexit.

Frozen and chilled storage were seen as being most at risk, and make up a crucial component for supermarkets transporting perishable goods.

For some supermarkets, electricity makes up 20 percent of their cost.

Ministers were told in the briefings last year that this could lead to higher food prices.

The PM’s spokesperson Camilla Marshall told reporters yesterday: “Households, businesses and industry can be confident they will get the electricity and gas they need over the winter”.

She reiterated that Mr Johnson’s government would be making no announcement on additional support.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1659172/UK-energy-crisis-chemical-fertiliser-factory-slowdown-closure-project-shine-treasury?mc_cid=25acbbb482&mc_eid=cc88839e92

**************************************************

Acedemic fightback aginst climate myth

Professor Dr. Knut Loschke studied crystallography, chemistry, physics, mathematics and computer science. In the course of a long career he founded an IT company, and is an honorary professor at the University of Technology, Economics and Culture in Leipzig. As part of his work at the University, he deals with the energy industry and climate change. He served the German Bundestag as an expert in ‘Artificial Intelligence’. But Professor Loschke is annoyed, very annoyed, as he demonstrated in this recent Facebook post.

I’m sick.

Or, to put it even more clearly: I’m fed up with permanent and increasingly religious climate ramblings, fantasies about the energy transition, worship of electric cars, horror stories and doomsday scenarios from Corona to conflagrations and weather disasters. I can’t stand the people who shout into microphones and cameras, or print it in newspapers every day. I suffer from having to see how science is turned into a whore of politics.

It seems that scientists like Professor Loschke are fighting back, tired of being abused and often ignored for scientific work that fails to conform to a fashionable political narrative. Last week, the Daily Sceptic highlighted the ongoing World Climate Declaration (WCD), now signed by over 1,100 scientists and professionals. Headed by the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, the WCD says there is no climate emergency. Climate science is said to have degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound science. Our story about the WCD attracted enormous interest on social media and is one of the most widely read articles we have ever published. Enormous efforts were made to trash the Declaration, and many of the people who signed have been personally abused.

The WCD is signed by no less than 235 professors drawn from a wide variety of scientific and other academic disciplines. Thirteen of the 28 WCD lead supporters are professors, seven out of the 10 Greek signatories likewise, and 11 out of the 24 from Norway. The climate scientist and writer Willie Soon recently listed a number of the academic disciplines that are helpful in studying the changing climate. They include: astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochemistry, paleoclimatology, glaciology, oceanography, ecology and history. It was not a complete lists, he added. The breadth of experience from scientists and non-scientists found in the WCD list encompasses most, if not all of these areas of study. People with thousands of years of cumulative practical experience are calling for the study of climate science to be less political and for governments’ climate policies to be more scientific.

Another German scientist, the distinguished experimental physics specialist Professor Hermann Harde, recently dismissed the idea that humans control the climate via carbon dioxide emissions as an “absolute delusion”. He warned politicians that it would be an irresponsible energy policy to continue to ignore more serious peer-reviewed scientific publications that show a much smaller human impact on climate than previously thought.

We recently reported Harde’s comments and referred to the fact that for years German politicians have been able to make virtuous green noises by banning nuclear and fossil fuel production, while relying on an unstable Russia to make up the energy short fall. The sheer stupidity of that policy is likely to become apparent in Germany this winter. Already problems are mounting, with the German newspaper Handlesblatt reporting that the megawatt price of electricity jumped last week to a new high in daily trading. A megawatt hour cost €563, compared to just €23 a year ago. Of course, the ruinous policies behind Net Zero are responsible for this. In the U.K., the spike in international gas prices, and an increasing reliance on unreliable renewables, means the consumer energy price cap could be raised to £6,000, an amount that is almost certainly beyond the means of a significant portion of the population. Under these conditions, a cold winter could kill thousands of people.

Before he died, the acclaimed physicist Professor Freeman Dyson – a signatory of the CWD – noted that the “people who are supposed to be the experts and claim to understand the science, are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence”. Professor Richard Lindzen, a WCD lead signatory, evidently agrees, having said that the current climate narrative is “absurd”, even though trillions of dollars currently says it is not. It remains to be seen what will run out first – the money, or the tolerance of citizens to become poor under command-and-control, hard-left Net Zero regimes.

For years, green activists and journalists have been able to hide behind the obvious canards that the science surrounding the human involvement in climate change is ‘settled’, and that 99% of scientists agree with that statement. The arrogance behind this political stance is on display with a tweet from the Guardian writer George – “Don’t mention the coral!” – Monbiot, who made an oblique reference to the recent WCD article.

As we have reported before, 48 Italian science professors recently wrote to their Government, stating that human responsibility for climate change is “unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic”. Activists such as Monbiot regularly traduce ‘deniers’ for their supposed links to funding from oil companies (although he recently dismissed the suggestion that the Guardian’s lavish funding by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation influences its coverage in the slightest). Particular ire is often reserved for geologists, since they are much in employment demand from companies that seek to extract mineral riches from the Earth.

Geology also provides an important insight into the paleoclimatic record. Geologists are often sceptical about claims that humans are causing sudden changes in the climate. One might say that they have seen it all before. The only scientist who went to the moon on Apollo was a geologist called Harrison Schmitt, and his position is that there is “no evidence” that humans cause climate change.

The increasing numbers of scientists prepared to break ranks with the ‘settled’ politicised science of climate change would suggest various causes for their scepticism other than bungs from oil companies.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/23/declaration-saying-there-is-no-climate-emergency-trends-on-twitter-greenies-have-meltdown/?mc_cid=25acbbb482&mc_eid=cc88839e92

*************************************************

E-cars and lithium

Luxury Tesla sports cars are cool. Their instant acceleration that flings iPhones onto the backseat makes for great TV, especially when they’re zipping around the Top Gear racetrack under the [not-so-careful] handling of Jeremy Clarkson.

Lower-end ‘affordable’ European ecars are hilarious to watch as they struggle along motorways, limping toward non-existent recharging stations like ugly, half-squashed bugs.

In the early 2000s, it was a great (if not predictable) gag to take ecars on road trips and watch the tyranny of distance defeat them. Plenty of fossil-fuel-driving hopefuls who claim to desire an ecar of their own (without committing) snottily note, ‘We moved on from horses and carts – this is the next evolution!’ Sure, but at least if a horse breaks down you can eat it. Lifeless ecars quickly become expensive gym sessions.

‘This is the future of motoring here!’ shouted Clarkson, pushing a dead ecar by its door while James May heaved at the back.

It was inevitable that ecar manufacturers would eventually improve their range and expand charging infrastructure as the years passed. Mind you, even the keenest ecar countries are a long way from a genuine ‘transition’. There are engineering roadblocks that will always make ecars unattractive to anyone who has to pay for them with real money (governments and politicians don’t count).

Markets are pretty good at deciding what constitutes a shit or – if we’re going to be kind – unfinished product. People are not buying ecars without serious government subsidies because they are not as good as conventional cars. They don’t go as far or last as long, they cost too much, deteriorate on Australian gravel roads, have zero resistance to floods, take ages to recharge, randomly catch fire, change performance with temperature, and if they break – no one has a clue what to do.

They are also an investment with appalling resale potential. Ecars sit around leaking charge and degrading their batteries in the car park. A 2011 Nisson Leaf’s range drops to 80 per cent in 5 years. A 2017 Chevrolet Bolt warns that 10-40 per cent of battery capacity could be lost over the warranty period. Fast charging (or supercharging) is thought to add an additional 10 per cent drop in range for most ecars. Owners are faced with the prospect of either waiting hours for them to charge or making use of superchargers and copping the irreversible damage. You would never buy a second-hand ecar for the same reason most people aren’t adopting a ten-year-old iPhone.

Within the European Union, customers have to be bribed into taking on the financial risk of an ecar. As of 2020, between 20-17 countries offer significant incentives. Even with this push, they remain a minority purchase at 11 per cent. This huge public cost has caused even the Woke-ist countries like Germany to walk away from throwing money at the ecar industry.

‘We simply cannot afford misguided subsidies anymore. These cars have so far been subsidised over their lifetime with up to 20,000 euros, even for top earners. That is too much. We can save billions there, which we can use more sensibly,’ said German finance minister Christian Lindner.

Unsurprisingly, the Association of International Motor Vehicle Manufacturers was furious, calling it a ‘severe breach of trust’. Why? Aren’t they confident that the green virtue of their planet-saving ecars is enough of a draw card for customers?

Norway, one of the only nations with ecars making up a majority of new purchases, has also decided to end most incentives by 2023. Did you do your bit for the environment and buy an ecar? Congratulations. The government in Norway is now going to go ‘more green’ and shift away from private car ownership and instead encourage walking, cycling, and taking the bus. Feel that? It’s the tide of civilisation withdrawing.

There is an enormous ‘buyer-beware’ message sitting in plain sight.

Politicians looking to polish their green credentials stand in front of press conferences and insist that ecars are ‘cheaper!’ and ‘affordable!’ because they are heavily subsidised. But, as purchases grow, governments have to abandon tax perks, handouts, and ‘free parking’ offers which leaves ordinary consumers stuck trying to buy extremely expensive ecars that work about half as well as their old, cheap, fossil-fuel car – which the government has quietly banned to stop the market regurgitating the ecar mistake all over its deceitful ministers.

So yes, green groups will get their wish. Western nations will experience a sudden decrease in private car ownership because of poverty, not choice. You won’t see that on Albanese’s brochure regarding his ecar policy.

Albanese must think Australians are total mugs (perhaps they are, if they fall for this one).

Labor has a bill before Parliament to deepen the deficit by spending (who knows how many billions) on tax concessions for those who purchase new ecars. There’s a reason Australia has less than 2 per cent ecars – they are a terrible fit for the enormous distances that we travel. Of those 2 per cent, most are likely doing loops around Canberra while the rest are the third or fourth luxury vehicle of a virtue-signalling professional in a Teal seat. Not the actual Teal leaders, though. They drive hybrids – which is green virtue with a backup oil rig.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers bravely stated that ecars are, ‘Good for motorists, good for employers and their workers, and good for climate action.’

Notice he didn’t mention ‘good for the energy grid’ because if the predicted 3.8 million ecars fantasied about by the Powering Australia Plan come home and plug in, it’ll be back to the Dark Ages for the rest of us. He also left out the bit about ‘good for child slave labour in the Congo’ and ‘good for China’s barbaric rare earth mining’ and ‘good for the destruction of the ocean floor in the blue economy’. If Chalmers had been feeling especially honest, he might have added ‘good for supply chains with all those extra delays for charging added in’.

Labor’s policy is designed to benefit large corporations who wish to gift a bit of eco-virtue to their employees. If the government was actually interested in transforming the transport grid, they’d stop interfering. It is no accident that Tesla makes the best ecars. They were the one company forced into a situation of ruthless market competition which dramatically increased the quality of their product. Propping ecars up with public money allows them to languish in mediocrity and when the safety net is ripped away, the public will be left with an expensive, undesirable product.

There are a couple of huge lies sitting underneath the push for ecars – lies that will become obvious too late for the public to correct course.

The first is that Labor can power an ecar revolution. Labor is pushing Australia towards a sharp increase in energy requirement that will peak during the night. At the same time, it is closing fossil fuel power stations and putting all of its faith in solar and wind – a pair of power generation technologies that slump in the evening. There are only two ways that Labor can provide enough power to charge its millions of ecars – re-open coal-fired power stations or build nuclear plants. It has dismissed both of these options. Australia was already heading toward an energy catastrophe due to the ‘renewables empire’, ecars will accelerate this problem into a genuine nightmare for everyone.

The second is that ecars are convenient. There is no need to explain this one. Next time you pull into a packed petrol station with four or five cars in front and you’re frustrated that this is going to take 20 minutes! Remember that the fastest supercharger around (of which very few are installed) takes 15 minutes. You’re going to be there for over an hour and shorten the life of your battery.

Lie three is the claim that ecars are environmentally friendly. They are not. The pursuit of ecars is the primary driver behind deep sea rare earths mining – one of the most destructive and damaging mining activities there is. Other rare earths mining done on the surface produces astonishing amounts of radioactive sludge (which is why (environmentally conscious?) China took over their production. At the same time, rare metals like copper are mined in the third world by children. There’s a reason mining companies are ‘going green’ – this misguided obsession with Net Zero technologies has sparked a mining boom. Far from protecting the environment, we have never sought to dig more of it up than we are today.

By far the greatest lie is the promise of lithium. Renewable energy and ecars both contain lithium and act as competing industries for a vanishingly rare resource. The more ecars on the road, the more power is needed to charge them, which means we have to build more wind turbines, solar panels, and battery farms. It is an equation that gets out of control immediately when it comes to the sheer volume of mineral required to meet demand. It is a nonsense waste of a valuable resource that the rest of civilisation needs for phones, computers, and all manner of electrical system.

We are wasting lithium on power generation and ecars when other technologies exist – better technologies – and worse, we are using public money to force a transition that the market clearly doesn’t want.

This is not some kind of Climate Change wishy-washy apocalypse with a shifting end date, critical lithium shortages are expected by 2025, long before the Net Zero 2030 targets come into effect.

Car manufacturers admit that there is only enough lithium for 14 million ecars while the World Economic Forum says the world needs 5 billion to get to Net Zero.

The lithium shortage is about to make phones, computers, TVs, fridges, and all household electrical goods extremely expensive. If you think the cost of living is bad now, wait until the lithium dries up. Lithium used to cost $6,000 per tonne in 2020, in 2022 that figure sits at $78,032 per tonne. And what then? Solar panels, wind turbines, and battery farms have a best-case lifespan of 20 years. Everything that lithium was wasted on is headed for landfill leaving the power grid to be ripped up and replaced by – well – probably nuclear but it will cost more because of the lack of lithium.

As Stuart Crow, chair of Lake Resources, said: ‘There simply isn’t going to be enough lithium on the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it won’t be there.’

It doesn’t help that China owns around 80 per cent of the lithium supply chain, so it can quite literally hold the world to ransom once the ecar and renewables transition has taken place.

Jeremy Clarkson’s original impression of ecars in the 90s was spot on. He’s gone a little green under the wing of Amazon, but in addition to being one of the greatest writers of his generation, he was also prescient.

In 1996, he warned us about the future of the environmental movement. What once read as comedic hyperbole sits as a chilling realisation that the green monster is out of control.

‘Idealists will never go away; they’ll just surface again with a new corporate identity. Now they’re back under the environmentalist banner. Only this time, in their quest to bring down commercialism and give power to the people, they really do seem to have hit a raw nerve. “If we carry on like this, the planet will die. In five minutes of geological time, we have turned paradise into a rubbish dump.” Horse shit. They’re not the slightest bit bothered about the environment; it’s just a weapon that allows them to attack a system that no idealist has ever accepted: democracy.

‘But they’ve had a huge effect. Fearful of creeping sympathy for the so-called Greens, stupid, short-sighted governments all over the world have imposed Draconian environmental laws on what they see as easy meat – the internal combustion engine.

‘…If the environmentalists ever realise their dreams, you can kiss goodbye to free thought and say hello to the Gestapo or the KGB or whatever they decide to call their secret police. In fact, environmentalism is every bit as dangerous as Communism or Fascism.’

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/lithium-lies/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



23 August, 2022

Ancient El Niños reveals limits to future climate projections

The climate pattern El Niño varies over time to such a degree that scientists will have difficulty detecting signs that it is getting stronger with global warming.

That's the conclusion of a study led by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin that analyzed 9,000 years of Earth's history. The scientists drew on climate data contained within ancient corals and used one of the world's most powerful supercomputers to conduct their research.

The study of the past, which was recently published in Science Advances, was motivated by the need to get a clearer picture of how climate change may affect El Niño in the future.

El Niño is the warm phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, a climate phenomenon that sets the stage every few years for weather patterns worldwide. Strong El Niño events, such as the ones in 1997 and 2015 that brought wildfires to the rainforests of Borneo in Asia and caused widespread bleaching to the world's coral reefs, happened about once a decade.

Computer models, however, are unclear about whether El Niño events will become weaker or stronger as the world warms due to climate change.

"Much of the world's temperature and rainfall are influenced by what happens in the tropical Pacific Ocean where El Niño starts," said the study's lead author, Allison Lawman, who began the research as a Ph.D. project at the UT Jackson School of Geosciences and is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder. "The difference in rainfall between greater or fewer strong El Niño events is going to be a critical question for infrastructure and resource planners."

A 500-year simulation of El Niño intensity from the study period. Although the data appears chaotic, finding how these patterns change during periods of past climate change could hold the key to future climate projections, according to climate researchers at University of Texas Institute for Geophysics. Credit: Allison Lawman

Lawman and her collaborators used the Lonestar5 supercomputer at UT's Texas Advanced Computing Center to run a series of climate simulations of a period in Earth's history before human influences, when the main source of climate change came from a tilt in the planet's orbit. The simulations were verified using a coral emulator Lawman had previously developed to compare them with climate records from ancient corals.

They found that although the occurrence of strong El Niño events intensified over time, the change was small compared with El Niño's highly variable nature.

"It's like trying to listen to soft music next to a jackhammer," said study co-author Jud Partin, a research scientist at the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics.

To achieve this, Partin, Lawman and the study's other authors call for further investigations into even earlier times in Earth's history, such as the last ice age, to see how El Niño responded to more intense changes in climate forces.

"Scientists need to keep pushing the limits of models and look at geological intervals deeper in time that could offer clues on how sensitive El Niño is to changes in climate," said co-author Pedro DiNezio, an associate professor at University of Colorado Boulder. "Because if there's another big El Niño, it's going to be very hard to attribute it to a warming climate or to El Niño's own internal variations."

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-ancient-el-nios-reveals-limits.html?mc_cid=0e1d8c6ecd&mc_eid=cc88839e92

*******************************************************

Closed for good because of the cost of living crisis: From pubs and shops to swimming pools – how firms across Britain could shut because of soaring bills

Small businesses in particular have been unable to cope with the soaring cost of energy and food bills - and are now calling for immediate government intervention.

It comes as inflations hit double figures for the first time in 40 years, the highest it's been since 1982, at 10.1 per cent.

Now, an estimated 45 million people will struggle to pay energy bills this winter with predicted rises in price cap.

The new study, by the University of York, shows that 18 million families will be left trying to make ends meet after further predicted rises in the energy price cap in October and January.

Martin McTague, the national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses, has warned that the 'toxic cocktail' of rising taxes, energy costs, inflation and shrinking economic growth means 'action is needed right now'.

'The cost of living crisis can't be solved without addressing the cost of doing business crisis,' he said.

Yorkshire restaurant boss, Marco Di Rienzo has been forced to close his business after five years because of a £2,000 monthly bill.

The upmarket Italian restaurant, Santoni, on Airedale Road, Keighley remains popular, but with the worsening cost of living crisis and rising prices in general, Mr Di Rienzo has been left with no choice.

'The main factor is what's coming ahead,' he told Yorkshire Live. 'I think there is a tough year or two ahead....with higher food prices, gas and electricity.'

With his business facing rising gas and electric bills of up to 40%, the monthly bill would be rising from roughly £1,200 a month in the summer to £1,800, he said.

Winter monthly bills would be closer to £2,000.

Food bills for the restaurant are also reaching crippling levels, says Mr Di Rienzo. Since March, a 20-litre drum of vegetable oil had risen from about £20 to £42.

Imported Italian mozzarella cheese had also gone up from £6 per kilo to more than £7 and San Marzano tomatoes had gone up from around £8.70 to £11.20 per kilo.

The owner of a tea room in Derbyshire also has fears her business may close unless she gets more support to cope with soaring energy bills.

Clare Ransom said the electricity bill for Railway Tea Rooms, in Belper, Derbyshire, had increased by 254 per cent to £415 a month.

The prices of some food items had also increased drastically, she said.

Ms Ransom said she was worried she could lose her home if she was forced to shut down her business.

She told BBC Derby: '[The electricity bill] has gone up 254%, which is ridiculous, and that's just the electric - I've not had the gas increase yet.

'I physically cannot afford to pay £415 a month just for my electric.' 'I'm extremely worried and I just don't know how I'm going to carry on. 'I'm scared I'm going to lose my house in the end because of it all.'

Ms Ransom said the government 'needs to do something to help us', adding the lack of support has been a 'disgrace'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11123245/Cost-living-crisis-Firms-Britain-forced-shut-spiralling-energy-bills.html?mc_cid=becc56fc4c&mc_eid=cc88839e92

****************************************************

Britain’s Dumbest Energy Policy

A Conservative plan to cap household bills backfires spectacularly.

Britain’s ruling Conservatives have imposed some awful energy policies in recent years, but their cap on household energy bills deserves a special mention. The scheme has been an economic loser, and now it’s becoming a political loser in ways that illustrate the dangers when parties of the right play socialism lite.

That cap is supposed to limit household costs for electricity and natural gas, which most British homes use for hot water and central heating. It’s set twice a year by the industry regulator based on prevailing global energy prices. At the last adjustment, which took effect in April, households saw their energy bills shoot up some 54%, and the October rise is likely to be about as big.

The cap traces back to 2015, when Ed Miliband, the Labour candidate for Prime Minister, proposed a limit on energy bills. He lost that election, but his energy idea resurfaced in 2017 when Tory Prime Minister Theresa May embarked on a campaign to position the Conservatives as a kinder, gentler party. The effort didn’t work politically. In that year’s snap election she lost the majority her predecessor David Cameron had won when he defeated Mr. Miliband in 2015. But the price-cap notion lived on and she implemented it in 2019.

Big mistake. The cap has exacerbated economic havoc in Britain’s energy market. As global gas and other commodity prices started to rise in 2021, energy retailers found it impossible to pass to consumers the prices retailers were paying for the energy they were supplying. This has contributed to a wave of bankruptcies, some of which have stuck taxpayers with the cost of supplying households whose energy company went bust.

Meanwhile, since it only raises prices at a lag rather than limiting them, the cap leaves households frighteningly exposed to recent movements in global gas prices and the high-price consequences of Britain’s domestic energy policies—and leaves the Tories exposed to voters’ wrath. And now here comes the Labour Party to argue for making the cap a real cap by freezing it at its current level instead of allowing the next rise due in October.

This is terrible policy that would shift the burden of rising energy costs to taxpayers, who would have to make up the gap between energy companies’ revenues under the cap and their costs on the global market. But who are the Tories to disagree? They’re the wizards who created the cap, and they now will have to either risk bankrupting Britain’s utilities or explain to voters why the “cap” isn’t really a cap.

None of this has anything to do with increasing the supply of energy, which should have been the Conservative policy. Instead the party has resisted shale-gas fracking and pursued the costly fantasy of net-zero carbon emissions. Voters don’t seem to care about Tory green ambitions, but they definitely blame the Tories for soaring energy costs.

The moral: Even half-hearted energy price controls are political losers for conservative parties. More energy supply or bust.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/britains-dumbest-energy-policy-u-k-conservatives-household-energy-bills-cap-11660762498?mc_cid=becc56fc4c&mc_eid=cc88839e92

***************************************************

Inflation Reduction Act could threaten U.S. power systems

From California to Texas to New England, America’s power grid reliability is in alarming shape. And there’s a common thread: The nation is taking apart its existing energy infrastructure far faster than it’s building reliable replacement generation.

This is most apparent in the Democrats’ sweeping new climate and health care bill, the Inflation Reduction Act. The legislation is full of ambitious energy provisions. But it appears that the bill is likely to make America’s chaotic energy transition even worse.

The legislation contains plenty of tax credits to accelerate the deployment of weather-dependent wind and solar power. The problem for America’s power grid, however, is that the rapid addition of these intermittent energy sources is making grid management exponentially more difficult. That’s particularly true when wind and solar are replacing the on-demand power currently provided by coal, natural gas and even nuclear power.

Renewable advocates believe a massive expansion of the nation’s electricity transmission capacity, along with the development of grid-scale battery storage, is the solution. Their thinking is that batteries can help with storing excess solar power for night-time use — or provide backup capacity when the weather doesn’t cooperate. They also envision that transmission corridors can easily move power to regions experiencing electricity deficits. That sounds great. But even with significant incentives to encourage new energy storage, the required grid-scale batteries to make this possible are still in their infancy. And the siting and building of new electricity transmission infrastructure is proving difficult as well.

Utilities and grid operators are currently approving some large-scale transmission projects. But getting them into service is now a remarkably tall order. At present, it can take a decade to gain the federal, state and local government approvals needed for new, long-distance power lines. And high-voltage interstate transmission lines inevitably run into a variety of objections, including the permitting challenges of erecting wires through private and public lands, and the reluctance of local authorities to forfeit control or submit to greater federal oversight.

Consider the case of just one transmission line proposed to connect part of Texas to the Southeast. The Southern Cross transmission line, a 400-mile, $2 billion project, is on track to begin construction in 2023, with the hope of entering service in 2026. Should the line actually be completed, it will have taken 17 years from inception to finish. This tells us that building the transmission systems needed for widespread renewable systems is unlikely to happen at the speed and scale required.

There’s still another problem, however. As America’s baseload power plants are being pushed off the grid, replacement infrastructure simply isn’t coming online in time. The problem is serious enough that grid reliability experts are raising alarms.

The North American Electricity Reliability Corporation, which oversees the reliability of the nation’s power supply, recently warned that the pace of America’s grid transformation is now “out of sync with the underlying realities and the physics of the system.” In fact, NERC says that seven different regions of the United States face elevated risks of power outages during extreme weather or spiking demand.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s enormous incentives for wind and solar are likely to exacerbate this trend. The bill’s market-altering subsidies are joining a flurry of regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to accelerate coal plant closures. That means the nation’s current grid problems could turn into an unabated crisis.

Washington needs to do a critical rethink right now — while the nation still has significant baseload power plant capacity. The U.S. needs its longstanding power plants — particularly its remaining coal fleet — as a reliability hedge against the uncertainty and myriad challenges of ramping up renewable energy

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/aug/18/inflation-reduction-act-could-threaten-us-power-sy/?mc_cid=becc56fc4c&mc_eid=cc88839e92

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



22 August, 2022


Avoiding plastics and using a reusable coffee cup to save the environment? Maybe you've been duped

He has got it that Greenie claims are mostly a scam but he exonerates governments, Green politicians and grant-hungry adademics. Bizarrely, he blames big busines

Melbourne author Jeff Sparrow argues that, when it comes to environmental impacts, big corporations have engineered a sense of individual responsibility – to distract from their own.

"One of the reasons why we feel so despairing about the [climate] situation that we're in is that we are made to feel that we are the problem," Sparrow tells ABC RN's Big Ideas.

"We're told we consume too much, we're too greedy, we're too lazy, we surround ourselves with disposable plastics and we're spoiling the planet."

Humans can even be seen as at fault "merely by existing", he says. "Sometimes the argument extends to suggesting that humans are kind of a plague … infesting nature and bring[ing] ruination on the planet."

There are experts, such as environmental scientist Professor Ian Lowe, who argue for limiting the number of children we have, for environmental reasons.

Sparrow disagrees. "If we are the problem, then there's nothing we can do other than just make things worse," he says.

The CSIRO has put adapting to climate change at the top of what it identifies as the seven mega trends that will determine our fate. We need to be "leaner, cleaner and greener", it says.

Sparrow argues that it can't be left up to individuals to make that happen. History offers clues as to why.

"To start to think about what solutions might be available, it's really crucial that we understand where the problem came from and who was responsible," says Sparrow, who explores this topic in his latest book, Crimes Against Nature.

Take the term 'carbon footprint'. You've almost certainly used it, but do you know where it comes from?

The familiar notion, that we should consider how much carbon we are individually responsible for, was dreamt up as a marketing strategy, Sparrow says.

"This [carbon footprint concept] was actually cooked up by a PR company that was employed by BP as part of a campaign to rebadge itself once people became concerned about climate change.

"By getting people to look at their own individual responsibility for climate change, it meant that people stopped focusing on corporate responsibility. And so, rather than looking at BP's part in this horrific damage to the environment, people started thinking … 'What am I doing?'"

The world's scientists declare climate change is now a threat to human wellbeing, warning we are about to miss the window to "secure a liveable and sustainable future for all".

While corporations have such widespread impact – BP, for example, manages around 19,000 gas and oil stations worldwide – Sparrow believes than an individual approach at carbon reduction is ineffective.

He points to an MIT study that demonstrated Americans couldn't reduce their own carbon footprint as carbon pollution was embedded in American society as a whole.

The idea that we can reduce carbon emissions as individuals creates a "crippling demoralisation", Sparrow says. People seeking to reduce their personal carbon footprint "set themselves a task that they cannot possibly fulfil".

"It's good that people want to be part of the solution, but we have to think of what real solutions might look like and not just cripple ourselves with individualised guilt that doesn't make any difference."

Another example of individual responsibility gone awry is in recycling, according to Sparrow.

It was recently revealed that significant amounts of home recycling is ending up in landfill.

Yet individuals are instructed to conscientiously recycle – for example, by checking the numbers of the bottoms of containers, and taking soft plastics back to the supermarket.

Sparrow argues it's misspent energy.

"Not only are we being distracted from the real issues, but we are learning to interiorise this sense that it's our fault. It's not the government's fault. It's not the corporations' fault," he says. "I think that is incredibly destructive."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-22/jeff-sparrow-big-ideas-corporations-environment-responsibility/101318704

**********************************************

Experts Say Biden’s Expanded Lithium Production as Bad for Environment as Fossil Fuels

Sometimes you can't win

Increased domestic lithium production plays a crucial role in President Joe Biden’s green energy plan, as 2021 marked the largest rollout of solar, wind, and electric batteries in the history of the United States.

Nevertheless, lithium mining has quietly revealed itself to be a significant contributor to environmental pollution in the frantic rush to abandon fossil fuels.

On May 2, the Biden administration announced the investment of more than $3 billion to make more lithium batteries and their components. It’s a pivotal part of the president’s goal to have at least half of all vehicle sales in the United States be electric by 2030.

Currently, there are two main ways to obtain the sought-after element: Hard rock ore mining and brine extraction.

While much of the carbon emitted from mining depends on the rock it’s extracted from, this technique still produces at least 15 tons of CO2 for every ton of lithium harvested.

Generally speaking, mining is a dirty business. Mineral extractions like lithium and coal—a fossil fuel—both fall under this umbrella. Collectively, the mining industry generates between 1.9 and 5.1 gigatons of carbon emissions annually.

The other approach to accessing lithium involves removing the metal from brine in areas with salt flats. However, this approach requires, on average, 500,000 gallons of water to procure a single ton of lithium. While it’s a less carbon-intensive process, brine extraction still results in tens of thousands of gallons of highly toxic wastewater needing proper storage or disposal.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of green energy manufacturing behind the scenes.

Elements like cobalt and nickel are also crucial for renewable technologies like electric car batteries, which is another pollution-heavy withdrawal.

Same Pollution, Better Marketing
Open pit hard rock mining is the method scheduled for use at Thacker Pass, the largest lithium reserve in the United States.

Wind, solar, and electric-car batteries are dependent on the world’s lightest metal to function.

In the meantime, some experts are sounding the alarm over the not so green reality of renewable energy.

“While lithium-ion batteries are light-weight and convenient for modern-day electronics, they not only emit a large amount of carbon dioxide to produce, but they also tap into precious water reserves,” chief operating officer of Greenly, Matthieu Vegreville, told The Epoch Times.

Vegreville explained the carbon footprint of lithium mining, in comparison to other fossil fuel extractions like coal and oil, typically produces more carbon emissions. That’s because lithium products such as batteries require a more material-intensive process.

“And as the demand for battery material increases, it doesn’t make the process any easier,” he added.

President of the National Mining Association, Rich Nolan, noted during a press statement that Biden’s push for ramped-up domestic lithium production will make America more energy independent as the country continues shifting away from fossil fuels.

Nolan added the United States needs to build on this green momentum and approve new hard rock mines or face the continuation of geopolitical mineral dependence that is “completely dominated by China.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/experts-say-bidens-expanded-lithium-production-as-bad-for-environment-as-fossil-fuels_4673186.html

********************************************************

Journalists Hook RV Up to 3 Electric Trucks - They Accidentally Expose Total Nightmare of Driving One

“Towing a trailer with an EV is now possible but still far from practical due to drastically reduced range.” That’s a summary of Car and Driver’s test of three electric vehicles towing a 29-foot, 6,100-pound camper trailer.

It’s an improvement, actually, because a year ago Car and Driver couldn’t find an EV that could pull more than 5,000 pounds. Now they can — except EVs used for recreation are not yet ready for primetime.

Consider a person’s thoughts while driving a gasoline or diesel truck towing a camper to the great outdoors.

“I hope we get there before dark.”

“I hope we get a good campsite.”

“I hope we packed everything we need.”

And compare them with what might be the thoughts of an individual towing a trailer with an EV.

“I hope we get there before dark. I’d hate to see the truck’s lights drain the battery before we find a charging station.”

“I hope we get a good campsite. Having to stop to continually recharge the truck means we may not.”

“I hope we packed everything we need. And I hope there’s a charging station nearby.”

A major camping trip — especially with children — often can be stressful. Coaxing an electric vehicle along can add to the stress.

Because you can’t go far without having to recharge the battery, and that’s dependent upon finding a charging station that is readily accessible — unlike gas pumps, charging stations require the trailer to be unhitched to allow the truck to access the charger. “A major hassle” is how Car and Driver described that required unhitching.

But there are some positives to newer EVs, according to the publication, which tested a GMC Hummer EV, a Ford F-150 Lightning and a Rivian R1T.

“These new electric pickups are wonderful towing companions,” Car and Driver reported. They’re “aided by massive horsepower and torque that allow for easy merging with the flow of interstate traffic.”

“Their heavy curb weights (between 6855 pounds for the F-150 and 9640 pounds for the Hummer) lend an impressive stability when lugging a three-ton trailer.

“But you won’t want to be going far, as a full battery will take you a mere 100 miles in the Lightning, 110 miles in the R1T, and 140 miles in the Hummer.”

Each of those is less than half of the range of the electric trucks running at 75 mph without a load (230 miles for the Lightning, 280 miles for the R1T and 290 miles for the Hummer).

Speeds in the towing tests were limited to 70 mph.

Like EVs, when you hitch a trailer to a truck powered by an internal combustion engine, range drops by half, according to Car and Driver.

But even with a 2,000-pound trailer, a gas-powered Toyota Tundra can go an estimated 473 miles, according to a test by TheFastLaneTruck.com. In the same test, a Rivian R1T only went 153 miles using 91 percent of its charge.

And there’s another problem, Car and Driver reported — “low-battery warnings start in at roughly 50 miles to empty, when the battery pack is still nearly half full.”

So on top of all the other things on the mind of the EV driver towing a trailer to the wilderness comes this thought: “Why is that low-battery light on? I mean, we haven’t even been on the road for an hour!”

Perhaps in a year Car and Driver will be able to report more improvements to EVs. And perhaps not.

Setting aside the environmental destruction caused by mining for lithium batteries (and the sensitive geopolitics involved), the advocated wasteful scrapping of a well-functioning petroleum infrastructure, the needed development of an electric charging network (and a power grid to support it) and the high costs of electric vehicles, it may be that limitations on such cars and trucks can be traced to their inability to catch on more than a century ago.

That inability can be traced to physics.

Electricity can do a lot. But maybe not in long-haul vehicles.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/journalists-hook-rv-3-electric-trucks-accidentally-expose-total-nightmare-driving-one

*****************************************************

Australia: Clive Palmer breaks silence on coal mine refusal

Mining magnate Clive Palmer has broken his silence on the Albanese Government moving to knock back his proposed central Queensland coal mine, accusing Labor of being “irrational” and “captured by the Greens”.

Mr Palmer’s Central Queensland Coal Project, located 130km northwest of Rockhampton, was expected to create $8.2 billion in export from thermal and metallurgical coal.

Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek earlier this month issued a preliminary refusal of approval for the project due to it being just 10km from the Great Barrier Reef, with a 10 business day public comment period required before being finalised.

That period ended on Thursday evening and a spokesman for Mr Palmer confirmed his company had made a submission.

But in a statement on Sunday morning, Mr Palmer claimed it was “the first time in Australian history” a coal mine in central Queensland had been refused approval.

He said it showed the Greens were running the government.

Greens leader Adam Bandt says new coal and gas projects will not only make the “climate crisis worse,” but they can also “blow any chance” of Australia meeting the government’s “weak targets”. The Albanese government will introduce several…
“To reject $80 billion shows economic irresponsibility,’’ Mr Palmer said.

“Especially so when the entire production was destined for export markets and the alternative is the replacement in the market of inferior Indonesian coal which will result in three times greater emissions than what would have been the case with our coal.

“It’s clear the Albanese Government is irrational and is captured by Adam Bant and The Greens.”

He seemed to attempt to link the situation with former Prime Minister Scott Morrison having issued himself five secret portfolios by asking “how many secret portfolios has (Mr Albanese) given to (Greens leader) Adam Bandt”.

There is no indication Mr Albanese has issued any “secret portfolios” and he has strongly condemned the actions of Mr Morrison in doing so.

The Greens are continuing to push for a ban on new coal mines and coal-fired power stations.

Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef Senator Nita Green said Mr Palmer had to pass the same environmental approvals as anyone else, and refuted the billionaire’s claims that Labor was “captured by the Greens”.

“I have not seen the reasons for the proposed decision, but I am fully aware that poor water quality is an ongoing risk to the Reef and the jobs it supports. It’s up to any proponent to show how they can mitigate such risks,” Senator Green said.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/business/qld-business/clive-palmer-breaks-silence-on-coal-mine-refusal/news-story/be232fd33eac8a67eb178cd95c39d727

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



21 August, 2022 Is Global Warming The Greatest Scientific Fraud In History?

In 1912, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered the “missing link” between ape and man, known as “The Piltdown Man.”

He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England. Dawson submitted the find to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of geology at the Natural History Museum. [bold added]

Smith Woodward made a reconstruction of skull fragments, and the archaeologists hypothesized that the find indicated evidence of a human ancestor living 500,000 years ago.

They announced their discovery at a Geological Society meeting in 1912. For the most part, their story was accepted as fact. However, subsequent chemical testing showed that the skull and jats actually came from two different species, a human and an ape.

The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and sophisticated scientific fraud. Forty-one years elapsed between the discovery of the “Piltdown Man” and the determination that it was a fraud.

In 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC).

In its seminal report in 1990, the U.N. IPCC stated that “at the then current rate of world emissions of CO2, the global mean temperature would likely increase by 1°C by 2025.”

This statement formed the basis for the hypothesis that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming resulted from the increased concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower atmosphere resulting from man-made activities.

Central to the hypothesis was that the temperature of the lower troposphere would increase as the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere increased.

Therefore, in its 1990 report, the U.N. IPCC established a direct linkage between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the lower troposphere.

The scientific method of inquiry has guided scientific research and investigation for over 400 years. In summary, the scientific method requires that a researcher observe a phenomenon, postulate a hypothesis for the cause of the phenomenon, and then conduct experiments or scientific investigations to falsify the hypothesis.

In adherence to the scientific method, a climate scientist who thinks that man has caused global warming should develop a complex hypothesis as follows:

* Global warming has occurred; that is, the temperature of the world’s oceans, landmass, and relevant atmosphere has risen during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.
* Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.
* The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth.

If any of the conjectures in the complex hypothesis above are found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is determined to be falsified and either discarded or modified.

In 1978, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to launch a series of satellites to polar-circumnavigate the globe using microwave-sounding technology to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (first 8 km of the Earth’s atmosphere).

The results show that during the period 1979–1998, the average monthly temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere decreased approximately 0.3°C each year, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 335 ppm to 370 ppm.

Sometime during the period 1979–1998, an unbiased climate scientist at the U.N. IPCC should have observed that the temperature of the troposphere had significantly cooled while the concentration of CO2 had increased, contradicting the fundamental precept of the global warming hypothesis.

A committee should have been assembled to verify the accuracy of the temperature and CO2 concentration data.

The man-made global warming hypothesis should have been declared falsified if the data were accurate. No such action occurred.

Until the advent of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the Piltdown Man was the most remarkable scientific fraud in history. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has now assumed that title.

https://principia-scientific.com/is-global-warming-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-in-history/

******************************************************

Globalists Using Climate Change & ‘Energy Shortages’ To Control You

As a result of western governments’ taking collective action under the auspices of a ‘climate change’ agenda, we are on the cusp of something happening with ramifications that no one has ever seen before.

Western governments’, specifically western Europe, North America (U.S-Canada) and Australia/New Zealand, are intentionally trying to lower economic activity to meet the intentional drop in energy production.

This is the core consequence of the Build Back Better agenda as promoted by the World Economic Forum.

Anyone who says there is a reference point to determine both the short-term and long-term consequences is lying. There is no precedent for nations’ collectively and intentionally trying to reduce economic activity.

Hiding behind the false justification that current inflation is driven by too much demand, central banks in Europe, the Bank of England, Bank of Canada and U.S. federal reserve are raising interest rates. The outcome we are currently feeling is an intentional economic contraction and global recession.

The Build Back Better monetary policy is successfully shrinking western economic activity; however, the impacted nations that produce goods for markets in North America and Europe, specifically southeast Asia, Japan and China, are not raising interest rates in an effort to try and offset the drop in demand. China has announced they are dropping their central bank rates in a desperate effort to lower costs and keep their export dependent economy working.

Underneath all of this, is a drop in energy production in the same nations trying to lower economic activity.

The political policymakers are attempting to manage this process without informing the citizens of the unspoken goal. Shortages of oil, coal and natural gas are self-inflicted problems, all part of the BBB agenda.

Beyond the massive increases in energy costs, which is the true source of inflation and a direct/intentional outcome of the BBB effort, Europe is now facing a looming winter without the energy resources to heat homes and sustain people. Things are going to be very uncomfortable in Europe this winter as roaming brownouts are now predicted.

As the collective west attempts to, using their words, “manage the transition,” they do not have mechanisms to control an outcome of this magnitude. It is simply too big a situation to manage.

Where the rubber meets the road, the think-tanks and high-minded climate change ideologues do not have the ability to manage a transition and still meet the needs of people. Beyond the esoteric thinking, there are real consequences from these actions.

Many people have discussed the potential for longer-term food shortages and recently, shorter-term winter heating. However, beyond that, the downstream geopolitical consequences are seemingly being ignored. Instead, what we see is an effort to keep pretending the climate change ends will justify the means (disruption of energy production).

In this connected world, when the western nations stop buying things, we find ourselves domestically with economic trouble. Businesses fail, unemployment rises, financial stress ripples throughout the economy, dependency on government subsidy increases and real pain is felt. However, beyond the domestic issues the supplier nations run into even bigger problems.

Unemployment in Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and even China, creates an entirely different set of regional stability issues on a geopolitical level.

There is no precedent for this.

Never before in the history of industrialized nations has any government intentionally tried to lower its economic activity. It has never been done with intent before because within the contraction nations get more poor, people suffer.

Not only has no single nation ever tried to intentionally shrink its wealth, but there is no precedent whatsoever for an alliance of nations to join together with the same purpose.

While this might seem like an academic economic modeling exercise, unfortunately it is very real. What I am describing is happening right now, and we had better start talking about it before the unforeseen consequences start to become a crisis.

In North America (U.S-Canada), Europe and Australia, there will continue to be massive increases in food prices as a result of the collapse in energy production. Beyond the western nations there will be food shortages as a result of lowered harvest yields and less industrial food production. This is not controversial.

It is also not controversial that regions with harsh winter climates are going to be paying much more for scarce heating resources.

That being accepted, what happens geopolitically, even militarily, when the entire global economy starts to feel the impacts from western nation economic contraction on a scale -created by collective action- that has never been seen before.

I have no idea what that big picture consequence looks like, but whatever “that” is, will be happening at the same time as people everywhere will be more desperate as an outcome of their economic position. I don’t have the answers, but I sure as hell can see the problem coming.

Political leadership in the aforementioned western nations are seemingly, perhaps intentionally, keeping people distracted with domestic shiny things to occupy time.

However, someone needs to start talking about, and seriously challenging, the big picture consequence of this Build Back Better future, before it’s too late.

https://principia-scientific.com/globalists-using-climate-change-energy-shortages-to-control-you/

*************************************************

Biden & Co. get something right

When President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law on Aug. 16, his signature opened the door to reinstating the largest oil and gas lease sale in U.S. history, which had been blocked by a court because of climate impact concerns.

The Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions that direct spending, tax credits, and loans to bolster technologies such as solar panels and equipment to cut pollution at coal- and gas-powered power plants.

But the legislation also contains a provision that reinstates the previously halted Lease Sale 257, the biggest offshore oil and gas lease in U.S. history, spanning nearly 81 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico.

Lease Sale 257, which sold at auction for $192 million in March 2019, was challenged by environmental groups, which argued that the sale violated federal law by relying on an inadequate environmental impact review that failed to accurately consider greenhouse gas emissions.

Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia agreed, ruling in January (pdf) that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s decision to proceed with the sale was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Contreras’s ruling blocked the lease and the Biden administration didn’t appeal. But by signing the Inflation Reduction Act into law, Biden has effectively revived the lease.

“Lease Sale 257 is reinstated and high bidders must get their lease,” the National Ocean Industries Association (NOIA), a group that serves the offshore oil, gas, and wind industries, said in a statement.

NOIA also pointed to a handful of other lease sales that now must be held because of the enacting of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) after the Biden administration canceled them in May, when prices at the pump were soaring to record highs.

The association’s chief generally gave a passing grade to the legislation for putting in place what he described as “a framework for continued development of U.S. offshore oil and gas, mechanisms to advance offshore wind, and incentives to spur offshore carbon sequestration innovation.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-revives-biggest-offshore-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-in-americas-history_4673007.html

****************************************************

Australia: Red tape threat to miners, agriculture in draft environment law

Mines, gas projects, farms and other industries in Australia’s second-biggest resources market and third-biggest agriculture sector could be shut down by a bureaucrat’s decision, under secret legislation drafted by the Queensland Environment Department.

Industry stakeholders were forced to sign an unprecedented confidentiality deed by the department’s strategic policy team – led by former Wilderness Society campaign manager and anti-­mining activist Tim Seelig – gagging them before they were allowed to see proposed Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Act amendments.

Several high-level sources said the draft bill as circulated would give a bureaucrat, likely the Environment Department’s director-­general, the power to wind back retrospectively existing environmental approvals, licences, and permits to slash production ­capacity.

That means farms could be told they need to cut the number of livestock they can have, mines could be told to dig up less coal and gasfields could be instructed to extract less gas, in defiance of existing environmental authorities awarded by the department.

An industry source said: “It’s frankly outrageous. It would give power to a bureaucrat to unilaterally and retrospectively close businesses. It’s sovereign risk of the highest order.”

The legislation, if passed in the original form, could threaten Queensland’s $90bn resources and $14.5bn agriculture industries, as well as aquaculture and other sectors. There is concern it would also increase the amount of red tape involved in new environmental approvals, such as environmental impact statements.

After The Australian asked about the plan on Monday, a spokesman indicated the Environment Department had changed its mind about pursuing retrospective powers. “DES (the Department of ­Environment and Science) is not considering any amendments to legislation that would apply ­retro­spectively,” the spokesman said.

But fresh amendments to the EPOLA Act have not yet been drafted, and industry sources say they are still concerned about the department’s plans and unsure how its new promise to not introduce retrospective powers would apply to existing projects.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/red-tape-threat-to-miners-agriculture-in-draft-bill/news-story/a972302b5d5162df405d5d2f33812b83

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************




19 August, 2022

India plans U-turn on coal plant closures in blow to climate pledges

India’s government is studying a slower retirement of aging coal-fired power plants as it also adds newer sites, a move that would keep fossil fuel capacity higher for years and potentially stall efforts to hit climate goals.

Officials are considering a proposal to shutter less than 5 gigawatts of existing capacity by the end of the decade as the nation grapples with surging electricity demand and a global energy shortage, according to people familiar with the matter. That compares with plans drawn up in 2020 that proposed shuttering about 25 gigawatts by the same date.

Spokespeople for power ministry and environment ministry didn’t respond to emails and text messages seeking comment.

India currently has about 204 gigawatts of coal power capacity and the plans under discussion would see that total expand to more than 250 gigawatts over the next decade, according to two of the people, who asked not to be named as the discussions are private. No final decisions have been made, the people said.

“Any rupee invested in new coal infrastructure takes India away from its net zero goals,” said Sunil Dahiya, an analyst with the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, which supports the faster adoption of less-polluting fuels. “It will load the power system with redundant capacities and hinder investments in clean power projects.”

A pipeline of 30 gigawatts of coal projects that are in advanced stages of construction should be used to replace old and inefficient plants, and India should prioritize investments in expanding its grid and on decarbonization projects, Dahiya said.

Under the proposals being considered, India’s coal plants -- which currently account for almost 70% of electricity generation -- would continue to handle peak evening power demand, even as solar and wind projects become increasingly able to fulfill day-time requirements, according to the people.

The world’s third-largest emitter doesn’t envisage hitting net-zero until 2070, and is aiming only for half of its electricity generation capacity to use clean fuels by 2030, giving the nation scope to continue relying on coal for decades more. Together with China, India frustrated efforts to set a date to phase out the use of unabated coal power at last year’s Glasgow climate talks.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government aims to build 500 gigawatts of clean power capacity by 2030, and to ultimately become a global hub for solar, energy storage and green hydrogen. In the shorter term, ministers are seeking to ensure stable energy supply to consumers and industry.

With gas prices stubbornly high, many new hydropower projects proving too complex and a planned roll-out of renewables in its early stages, policymakers see a need to extend NSE -0.24 % on the country’s coal fleet. Other nations globally have also been responding to high demand and severe shortages of natural gas by burning more coal.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/india-may-delay-coal-plant-closures-in-blow-to-climate-action/articleshow/93630285.cms?mc_cid=c07dbd1e92&mc_eid=cc88839e92

**************************************************

Germany U-turns on nuclear in scramble to avert winter crisis

Germany plans to keep its remaining nuclear power plants open for longer in a major U-turn as it scrambles to keep the lights on this winter with less Russian gas.

Officials have concluded the plants are needed due to gas shortages and they can be kept open without safety concerns, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Germany pledged to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011, which hardened opposition to the technology.

Berlin has been under pressure to change course since the invasion of Ukraine to limit the impact of the gas crisis on manufacturers and households.

Germany has three plants left, operated by E.ON, EnBW and RWE, supplying about 6pc of the country's electricity.

They are currently due to close at the end of the year. Any extension has yet to be officially adopted and details remain under discussion, the Wall Street Journal added.

It came as Norway warned it could not do more to help Germany avoid a gas crisis this winter as Russia restricts supplies.

Jonas Gahr Störe, Norway’s prime minister, said the country was producing at “maximum” rates, having increased production by 10pc since Russia invaded Ukraine.

“We cannot simply decide politically, we are now delivering even more,” he told Olaf Scholz, Germany’s chancellor, during a meeting in Oslo.

It limits Germany’s options as it scrambles to find new sources of gas after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted a key source of supply.

Europe’s largest economy is among the countries most affected as Russia restricts supplies to Europe in retaliation over sanctions. Germany bought about 50pc of its gas from Russia prior to the war.

It is now racing to fill up gas storage sites ahead of winter. They were more than 75pc full as of last Friday, ahead of schedule, but it aims to reach 95pc by November 1 to try and avoid a gas crisis this winter.

Germany secured a commitment on Tuesday from major gas importers to keep two floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals fully supplied from this winter.

Uniper, RWE and EnBW have agreed to keep two Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs) in Brunsbuettel and Wilhelmshaven fully supplied from their expected operational start this winter until March 2024.

Norway is western Europe’s largest oil and gas supplier and also a major electricity exporter.

It exported about 5.7pc more gas this July compared to last amid rising demand from Germany and others. The value of the exports was four times higher, at almost £11bn, as gas prices soared.

At the meeting in Oslo, Mr Scholz, Germany’s Chancellor, thanked Norway for “exhausting its gas supplies to the maximum”, according to reports in the German press.

He added this was “very important to reduce our gas dependency on Russia”.

Economists warned yesterday that Germany is on track for recession as the energy crisis undermines confidence. Sentiment among financiers and business leaders has dropped to its lowest since the financial crisis, according to the monthly ZEW survey.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/16/germany-u-turns-nuclear-scramble-avert-winter-crisis/

*********************************************************

What the media won't tell you about drought in Europe

Europe is in the midst of what has been called the worst drought in 500 years. According to a drought expert with the European Commission in comments last week:

"We haven't analysed fully the event (this year's drought), because it is still ongoing, but based on my experience I think that this is perhaps even more extreme than 2018. Just to give you an idea the 2018 drought was so extreme that, looking back at least the last 500 years, there were no other events similar to the drought of 2018, but this year I think it is really worse than 2018."

While a full analysis of the ongoing 2022 European drought remains to be completed, so too the drought itself, it is clearly exceptional if not unprecedented. In this post I take a close look at the state of understanding the possible role of climate change n this year’s drought.

Specifically, I report on what the most recent assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and underlying literature and data say about the detection of trends in Western and Central European drought and the attribution of those trends to greenhouse gas emissions. The specific region that is the focus of this post, includes all of Germany, most of France, Hungary, Poland, Ukraine, and western Russia among other nations.

For Western and Central Europe, and especially for Germany and Northern France which are the subject of considerable news coverage right now, accurate representations of the current state of scientific understandings of drought are typically absent. Instead, we see many confident claims by journalists and some scientists of that this year’s drought is a signal of (or, if you prefer — fueled by, linked to, evidence of) human-caused climate change.

Let’s take a look at what the peer-reviewed literature and the IPCC actually say about drought trends in this region and their possible attribution to climate change.

One recent study — Vincente-Serrano et al. 2020 — looked at long-term trends in drought in Western Europe from 1851 to 2018, with a focus on precipitation deficits. (Note that their geographical definition of Western Europe differs slightly from that of the IPCC). The figure below shows trends aggregated for the region as a whole. They conclude: “Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.”

The paper goes through a number of different metrics of drought for various subregions across Europe. The authors are careful to note that there are other metrics of drought which may show different results:

"We emphasize that our findings should be seen in the context of the drought metric applied. Our assessment of drought characteristics is based on SPI, which is a precipitation-based metric. For a long-term assessment of drought in the region, it is not possible to use metrics that employ other important variables (e.g., streamflow, soil moisture, or AED)."

Another recent study — Oikonomou et al. 2020 — looked at more recent trends, from 1969 to 2018, and inclusive of all four of the IPCC European sub-regions. They found overall:

"Seemingly, one of the central outcomes of this research is that there is little change in drought characteristics for 1969–2018. It also seems, no particular tendencies for more or less frequent droughts in the two major geographical domains of Europe are present. This reinforces the stochastic nature of the drought natural hazard."

Of course, as the studies above acknowledge, trend analyses can be sensitive to start and end dates. One reason for this sensitivity is the fact that climate varies a great deal even without the presence of human forcings — and this variability is of course one of the challenges facing the detection of long-term trends, especially for rare events.

For its part, the IPCC AR6 — which summarizes a much broader literature than the two papers cited above — classifies drought into three categories: meteorological, hydrological and agricultural/ecological which emphasize respectively precipitation, streamflow and soil moisture.

With respect to hydrological drought in Western and Central Europe the IPCC could not be stronger in its conclusion:

"in areas of Western and Central Europe and Northern Europe, there is no evidence of changes in the severity of hydrological droughts since 1950"

For hydrological drought the IPCC is also quite strong in its conclusions:

"Low confidence: Weak or insignificant trends"

The IPCC lumps WCE in with many other global regions in its conclusion that, “Past increases in agricultural and ecological droughts are found on all continents and several regions” which it expresses with medium confidence, a qualitative judgment which is typically interpreted as about a 50-50 chance of being true.

Looking to the future the IPCC is quite clear that we should not expect to be able to attribute trends in drought to climate change today. The IPCC projects only medium confidence for increases in hydrological agricultural/ecological drought at 2 and 4 degrees C increases in temperature and low confidence for increases in meteorological drought at 2C. In short, the IPCC does not expect that either detection or attribution should occur in 2022, when we are still well below 2C and suggests that it may be many decades before detection and attribution claims can be more strongly supported.

The bottom line:

In Western and Central Europe — basically Atlantic France all the way to Moscow, north of the Mediterranean region and south of the North Sea region — the IPCC and the underlying peer reviewed research on which it assesses has concluded that drought has not increased and, logically, that increased drought cannot be attributed to human-caused climate change.

The only exception here is that the IPCC has medium confidence in an increasing trend of soil moisture deficits in some subregions, however the IPCC has low confidence that this trend can be attributed to human-caused climate change.

Looking to future, at temperature changes of 2C and more, at present the IPCC does not expect the current state of scientific understandings to change. But stay tuned — that’s why we do science.

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/series-what-the-media-wont-tell-you?mc_cid=c07dbd1e92&mc_eid=cc88839e92

****************************************************

Peddlers of environmental doom have shown their true totalitarian colours

Deloitte is the largest “professional services network” in the world. Headquartered in London, it is also one of the big four global accounting companies, offering audit, consulting, risk advisory, tax and legal services to corporate clients.

With a third of a million professionals operating on those fronts worldwide, and as the third-largest privately owned company in the US, Deloitte is a behemoth with numerous and far-reaching tentacles.

In short: it is an entity we should all know about, not least because such enterprises no longer limit themselves to their proper bailiwick (profit-centred business strategising, say), but – consciously or not – have assumed the role as councillors to believers in unchecked globalisation whose policies have sparked considerable unrest around the world.

If you’re seeking the cause of the Dutch agriculture and fisheries protests, the Canadian trucker convoy, the yellow-jackets in France, the farmer rebellion in India a few years ago, the recent catastrophic collapse of Sri Lanka, or the energy crisis in Europe and Australia, you can instruct yourself by the recent pronouncements from Deloitte.

Whilst not directly responsible, they offer an insight into the elite groupthink that has triggered these events; into the cabal of utopians operating in the media, corporate and government fronts, wielding a nightmarish vision of environmental apocalypse.

Outlandish claims

In May this year, Deloitte released a clarion call to precipitous action trumpeting the climate emergency confronting us. Called ‘The Turning Point: A Global Summary’, it is a stellar example of a mentality more common among officials in the EU: one of fundamental bureaucratic overreach (and one which generated Brexit – a very good decision on the part of the Brits, in my view) that threatens the very survival of that selfsame EU.

The report opens with two claims: first, that the storms, wildfires, droughts, downpours, and floods around the globe in the last 18 months are unique and unprecedented – a dubious claim – and implicitly that the “science” is now at a point where we can say without doubt that experts can and must model the entire ecology and economy of the planet (!) and that we must modify everyone’s behaviour, by hook or by crook, to avoid what would otherwise be the most expensive environmental and social catastrophe in history.

The Deloitte “models” posit that “climate impacts” could affect global economic output, and say that unchecked climate change will cost us $178 trillion over the next 50 years – that’s $25,000 per person, to put it in human terms.

Who dares deny such facts, stated so mathematically? So precisely? So scientifically?

Let’s update Mark Twain’s famous dictum: there are lies, damned lies, statistics – and computer models.

“Computer model” does not mean “data” (and even “data” does not mean “fact”). “Computer model” means, at best, “hypothesis” posing as mathematical fact.

No real scientist says “follow the science.” Yet this is exactly what bodies such as the EU consistently pronounce, pushing for collectivist solutions that do more harm than good.

Solutions in sovereignty

What might we rely on, instead, to guide us forward, in these times of accelerating trouble and possibility?

Valid authority rests in the people. Truly valid structures of authority are local, not centralised for reasons of efficiency and “emergency”. This must not become the generation of yet another top-down Tower of Babel. That will not solve our problems, just as similar attempts have failed to solve our problems in the past.

Ask yourself: are these Deloitte models – which are supposed to guide all the important decisions we make about the economic security and opportunity of families and the structures of our civil societies – accurate enough even to give those who employ them any edge whatsoever, say, in predicting the performance of a stock portfolio (one based on green energy, for example) over the upcoming years?

The answer is no. How do we know? Because if such accurate models existed and were implemented by a company with Deloitte’s resources and reach, Deloitte would soon have all the money.

That is never going to happen. The global economy, let alone the environment, is simply too complex to model. It is for this reason, fundamentally, that we have and require a free-market system: the free market is the best model of the environment we can generate.

Let me repeat that, with a codicil: not only is the free market the best model of the environment we can generate, it is and will remain the best model that can, in principle, ever be generated (with its widely distributed computations, constituting the totality of the choices of 7 billion people). It simply cannot be improved upon – certainly not by presumptuous power-mad utopians, who think that hiring someone mysteriously manipulating a few carefully chosen numbers and then reading the summarised output means genuine contact with the reality of the future and the generation of knowledge unassailable on both the ethical and the practical front.

The impact of delusional thinking

Why is this a problem? Why should you care? Well, the saviours at Deloitte admit that there will be a short-term cost to implementing their cure (net-zero emissions by 2050, an utterly preposterous and inexcusable goal, both practically and conceptually). This, by the way, is a goal identical to that adopted last week by the delusional leaders of Australia, which additionally committed that resource-dependent-and-productive country to an over 40 per cent decrease by 2005 standards in "greenhouse gas emission" within the impossible timeframe of eight years. This will devastate Australia.

Here is the confession, couched in bureaucratic double-speak, from the Deloitte consultants: "During the initial stages the combined cost of the upfront investments in decarbonization, coupled with the already locked-in damages of climate change would temporarily lower economic activity, compared to the current emissions-intensive path.”

The omniscient planners then attempt to justify this, with the standard empty threats and promises (the suffering is certain, the benefits ethereal): “those most exposed to the economic damages of unchecked climate change would also have the most to gain from embracing a low-emissions future.” Really? Tell that to the African and Indian populations in the developing world lifted from poverty by coal and natural gas.

And think – really think – about this statement: “Existing industries would be reconstituted as a series of complex, interconnected, emissions-free energy systems: energy, mobility, industry, manufacturing, food and land use, and negative emissions.”

That sounds difficult, don’t you think? To rebuild everything at once and better? Without breaking everything? Fixing everything in a few decades in a panicked rush while demonising anyone who dares object?

And what will it take to do so? Here’s the most alarming part: nothing more than “a coordinated transition” that “will require governments, along with the financial services and technology sectors to catalyze, facilitate and accelerate progress; foster information flows across systems; and align individual incentives with collective goals.”

A clearer statement of totalitarian inclination could hardly be penned.

Certain outcomes versus predicted outcomes

The one thing the Deloitte models guarantee is that if we do what they recommend we will definitely be poorer than we would have been otherwise for an indefinite but hypothetically transitory period.

Yet any reduction in economic output (however “temporary” and “necessary”) will be purchased at the cost of the lives of those who are barely making it now. Period.

Have you noticed that food has become more expensive? That housing has become more expensive? That energy is more expensive? That many consumer goods are simply unavailable? Can you not see that this is going to get worse, if the Deloitte-style moralists have their way? How much “short-term pain” are you going to be required to sustain? Decades worth? All your life, and the life of your children?

It’s very likely. For your own benefit. Remember that.

All this painful privation is not only not going to save the planet, it’s going to make it far worse.

More here:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/?mc_cid=c07dbd1e92&mc_eid=cc88839e92

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



18 August, 2022

Greenie scares about methane are totally misplaced

By Ian Plimer in Australia

The Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite showed that the greatest methane emissions are from the tundra in Canada and Russia, and the tropics – especially the Amazonian, Central African and Indonesian wetlands. Smaller emissions were from tropical South America, north-western America, China, west Africa, Antarctica, and Cape York.

No significant emissions were detected from the large coalfields of Europe, Canada, America, Botswana, South Africa, and Australia.

Nor were major emissions detected from the beef-growing areas of South America, South Africa, America, and Australia.

Termite-infested areas of northern Australia and our farmlands, rice-growing areas, major dams, and oil and gas fields were not pinpointed. The 2020 measurements were at a time of reduced industrial activity yet showed the largest increase in methane emissions since the 1980s.

What’s going on?

Heavy rains in central Africa in 2020, especially in South Sudan and Uganda, may be one of the smoking guns. Water releases from Lake Victoria increased flow into the White Nile which feeds the Ugandan and South Sudan wetlands. The Sudd wetlands contributed over 25 per cent of the growth in global methane emissions. There were also significant increases in natural methane emissions from eastern Canada in 2020 where there are a large number of lakes and wetlands.

In the tundra, soils comprise glacial debris overlain by peat bogs. The bacterially-assisted decomposition of vegetation into carbonaceous debris and peat releases methane which commonly self-ignites, as recorded by Shakespeare. Caliban’s reference to the scary will-o’-the-wisp in bogs, swamps, and marshes in The Tempest was a reference to the spontaneous ignition of methane-air mixtures.

Most landmasses are draped with sedimentary rocks that contain entrapped methane which leaks into the atmosphere, especially from carbon-rich organic sedimentary rocks. Methane is trapped in coal and is released by natural fracking, up drill holes that tap coal seam gas, and by rock depressurising during mining. Good underground ventilation, smoking bans underground, and a ban on using machinery that could produce sparks is normal procedure in Western coal mines.

If air contains 5-15 per cent methane, it is highly explosive and can self-ignite, especially if mixed with coal dust and carbon monoxide. Since the 1880s, more than 400 men have died underground from explosions in Australian coal mines. The largest was at Bulli (NSW) in 1887 (81 men). At Mt Mulligan (Qld) in 1921, the loss of 75 miners in an underground explosion killed three generations of men resulting in the permanent closure of the town and mine. Every family at Mt Mulligan lost a breadwinner.

The combination of the Indian Ocean Dipole, La Niña, and volcanic ash high in the atmosphere probably were the major contributors to heavy rain in much of Australia in 2022. This rain also increased natural methane emissions due to accelerated plant debris decomposition. The past shows us that after heavy rains in eastern Australia, the undergrowth in eucalypt forests grows rapidly. When followed by hot dry windy weather, forests become incendiary bombs. This is known by arsonists who ignite some 75 per cent of all grass and forest fires.

Recently I was in Leura in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. Huge rains in 1955-1956 built up the forest fuel load and were followed by massive bushfires in 1957. Vacant blocks, lonely chimneys, and burnt-out relics remain today in Leura to remind us of these catastrophic bushfires. Massive bushfires will be repeated after the 2022 heavy rains because of the inability to learn from history. Of course, the next inevitable catastrophic fires in eastern Australia will be claimed as unprecedented and blamed on Climate Change rather than on ideological neglectful forest maintenance.

It was the same 1955-1956 rains that flooded towns on the flood plains along the Murray, Darling, Murrumbidgee, Hunter, Manning, Hastings, Clarence, Richmond, Wilson, and Brisbane Rivers. Flood plains have fertile sediment that has accumulated from thousands of large floods over millions of years and, for millennia, were the perfect place for agriculture and settlement. Maybe, before Climate Change is blamed for floods in 2022, the history of flooding of the great rivers such as the Nile and Ganges where humans have lived and recorded flood history over thousands of years should be studied. Sometimes there is too much rain, other times there is not enough. Modern floods, droughts, and bushfires are certainly not unprecedented.

Humans have grazed cattle on flood plains since the first domestication of docile animals during an exceptionally cold period 12,900-11,700 years ago. Cattle emit methane and, if a carbon balance calculation is performed, cattle are already at Net Zero. The increasing attacks on the farming industry are yet another attempt by the Greens to stop productive industry. Bacteria comprise the largest biomass on Earth and emit more methane than any other life form hence the Greens should focus on reducing bacterial methane emissions. Don’t wait up.

The first time it rained on planet Earth was unprecedented.

Running surface waters 3.8 billion years ago at Isua (Greenland) left the oldest preserved gravels in the world which, when dissolved in acid, yield a carbon-rich residue with the chemical fingerprint of bacterial life that lived in a world without oxygen gas. At that time, the Earth’s atmosphere was rich in methane, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. On Earth since that time, water and life have always been hand-in-hand. Mars had water before Earth and lost most its water and atmosphere with the loss of the Martian magnetic field. Water-bearing minerals and water-worn structures are on Mars and it is only a matter of time before fossil and even modern bacteria are discovered in its rusted rocks.

Climate change cannot be understood using computer models that attempt to predict the future with incomplete information and invalid assumptions. The past is the key to the present and destruction of history, archaeology, and geology in the climate wars can only lead to hardship.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/rain-rain-go-away

**************************************************

Why the investment experts made a big mistake in writing off coal

Ross Clark

For anyone tempted to believe warnings from Mark Carney and other City figures about ‘stranded assets’ in the fossil fuel industry, while simultaneously buying the idea that renewable energy is the investment which can’t go wrong, here is a cautionary tale. Just over a year ago the mining giant Anglo American demerged its thermal coal division into a new company, Thungela Resources. At the time it seemed to some a bit like Northern Rock being divided into a ‘good bank’ and a ‘bad bank’. Here was a chance for Anglo American to cleanse its image by disposing of the nasty, climate-unfriendly part of its operation – the bit which many saw as doomed – and perhaps avoid some of the protests and legal actions which environmental campaign groups have been waging against fossil fuel businesses.

Analysts were not enthusiastic about the prospects for the new company. Boatman Capital – which specialises in identifying targets for short-sellers and which had previously attracted scorn by publishing a critical report on military outsourcing company Babcock International, although that report did foresee problems at the company – published a report valuing Thungela Resources at precisely zero. The company’s environmental liabilities, it estimated, could be three times as great as the value of the company itself. Taking Boatman’s lead, others shunned Thungela Resources too. In June 2021 the Investor’s Chronicleadvised its readers (many of whom had been allocated the shares by virtue of holdings in Anglo American) to sell their holdings at 156 pence.

A case of getting out just in time before pledges to eliminate carbon emissions – then coming in thick and fast in the lead-up to the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow – stranded the world’s coal mines for good? Not quite. Thungela Resources turned out to be just about the best investment you could have made in the summer of 2021. It has just reported profits of £485 million, up from £17 million last year. Its share price has rocketed to 1470 pence, a 500 per cent rise in 12 months and nearly ten times the price it was when the Investor’s Chronicle told readers to sell up. Even at this price, the stock is still yielding over 6 per cent. To be fair, not every broker advised selling – Liberium Capital put a ‘buy’ rating on it in in August last year – although its target price for the stock, 305 pence, has turned out to be somewhat pessimistic.

One day, Thungela Resources may well be valueless as the world moves onto cleaner energy. I can’t say I or many others, save perhaps for Arthur Scargill, would mourn the day the world’s last coal-fired power station closed its furnaces. Britain is already due to remove coal from the national grid by 2024. But in the meantime, coal has had a bumper year thanks to the shortage of gas. Many countries, such as Germany, have had to turn back to the fuel as gas supplies from Russia have diminished. Moreover, many developing countries which do not have gas reserves remain and will remain dependent on coal for many years, even decades, to come.

The story of Thungela Resources over the past year is a caution against falling for the prevailing City narrative that promises of net zero are quickly going to sweep away the fossil fuel business and that renewables are where the easy money is to be made. Had you sold your Thungela Resources shares last year you might, for example, have thought of reinvesting the money in Orsted, the former Danish Oil and Gas Company which has positioned itself and rebranded itself as a renewable energy company. But alas, your investment would have slipped 15 per cent as Orsted warned of lower profits thanks to disappointing wind speeds.

In case you are wondering, no, I don’t and have never owned shares in Thungela Resources and so I have not shared in the bonanza. Given that I frequently write on climate and energy issues and am constantly under the watch of climate activists I made the decision not to invest in oil, gas or coal companies so that no one could claim I was in any way ‘in the pay’ of the fossil fuel business.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/why-the-city-made-a-mistake-in-writing-off-coal/

**************************************************

U.N. War On Fertilizer Began in Sri Lanka

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) describes itself as “the global authority that sets the environmental agenda… and serves as an authoritative advocate for the global environment.” Through its “Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food” program launched in 2014, the UNEP advocates that nations “steer away from the prevailing focus on per hectare productivity.”

But today the world is in its worst food crisis since 2008. The number of people suffering acute food insecurity increased by 25% since January 2022 to 345 million, according to the United Nations World Food Programme. Why, then, is the UNEP trying to steer nations away from fertilizers that increase food production?

The UNEP’s Acting Director in 2019 said the reason was humankind’s “long-term interference with the Earth’s nitrogen balance.” In October of that year, the UNEP hosted a meeting in the capital of Sri Lanka, Colombo and issued a “road map” to push nations to cut nitrogen pollution in half.

But the Netherlands proves that nations can slash nitrogen pollution from livestock by 70% while also increasing meat production. Same for crops. Since the early 1960s, the Netherlands has doubled its yields while using the same amount of fertilizer. While rich nations produce 70 percent higher yields than poor nations, they use just 54 percent more nitrogen.

One month after the Colombo meeting in 2019, which generated significant media attention in Sri Lanka, voters in that nation elected an anti-fertilizer president, H.E. Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who claimed, without scientific evidence, that synthetic fertilizers were causing kidney diseases. In April 2021, he banned fertilizer imports.

In June, 2021, two months after the fertilizer ban, Sri Lanka hosted a UN-sponsored “Food System Dialogue” aimed at influencing the UN’s broader anti-fertilizer agenda for the world. “Sri Lanka’s inaugural Food System Dialogue is part of a series of national and provincial dialogues conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture ahead of the 2021 UN Food System Summit set to take place in New York later this year.”

In his statement to the UN Food System Summit in New York in September, Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa repeated his claim that “chemical fertilizers… led to adverse health and environmental impacts.” He said, “My Government took the bold step to restrict imports of these harmful substances earlier this year,” and blamed farmers for resisting his fertilizer ban, saying that “changing the mindset of farmers long accustomed to using chemical fertiliser has proven challenging.”

In fact, the fertilizer ban was causing a crash in agricultural production. After the fertilizer ban, 85% of Sri Lankan farmers experienced crop losses. Rice production fell 20%, prices rose 50 percent, and the nation had to import $450 million worth of the grain. In Rajanganaya, where farmers operate on just a hectare (2.5 acres), of land on average, families reported producing half their normal crop harvest.

There were other factors behind the government’s fall, but those factors affected many other nations and none fell. Covid lockdowns hurt tourism. The government borrowed too much. Oil prices rose. All were factors and none were decisive. What made the difference was Sri Lanka’s ban on fertilizers.

Hardest hit was tea. It had generated $1.3 billion in exports annually and provided 71% of the nation’s food imports before 2021. After the fertilizer ban, tea production crashed 18%, reaching its lowest level in 23 years. The government’s devastating ban on fertilizer thus destroyed the ability of Sri Lanka to pay for food, fuel, and service its debt.

The UN justifies its anti-fertilizer agenda on the same basis as the Sri Lankan government: cost savings. UN documents claim that its goal for nations to “Halve Nitrogen Waste” would save nations “$100 billion annually.” But the same document promotes a “circular economy,” which is a euphemism used by Green parties in Europe to refer to economic “de-growth” based on making food and energy production less productive.

UNEP isn’t the only UN agency promoting an anti-fertilizer agenda. The U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2018 launched the “Scaling Up Agroecology” Initiative. It is not a research initiative, it is an advocacy initiative. It claims “agroecological systems are vital… for addressing poverty, hunger, and climate change.” In fact, agroecology, which doesn’t use synthetic fertilizer, reduces food production, and thus increases poverty and hunger.

Now, the UNEP is seeking to move nations away from modern fertilizers through “the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS)” under the guise of science. It calls INMS a “science support process” as part of an “Inter-Convention Nitrogen Coordination Mechanism (INCOM).”

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/un-war-on-fertilizer-began-in-sri

***************************************

Carbon ratings, meat taxes, and lump sums to allow the poor to 'buy animal products'...

We are barely a week out from the ‘climate friendly’ proposal that would see supermarkets add ‘eco labels’ to over 57,000 products so that shoppers can ‘consider the environmental impact’ of their food choices.

This ‘helpful’ information has already been twisted into an opportunity to enact a paternalistic control over what the poor eat and to siphon off untold millions in tax.

Notice how quickly the message went from ‘we are trying to help you make good food choices’ to ‘we are going to tax you if you don’t eat what we say’.

As the painfully screechy Guardian writes:

‘Rearing livestock and growing crops to feed them has destroyed more tropical forest and killed more wildlife than any other industry. Animal agriculture also produces vast quantities of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

‘The environmental consequences are so profound that the world cannot meet climate goals and keep ecosystems intact without rich countries reducing their consumption of beef, pork and chicken.

‘To slash emissions, slow the loss of biodiversity and secure food for a growing world population, there must be a change in the way meat and dairy is made and consumed.’

Pay no mind to the destruction caused by covering agricultural land in solar panels, chopping down forests for wind turbines, or carving up the ground for renewables mines where children are sent into the darkness and muck. Ignore the suffocation of former forests by vegan favourites canola and soy, or that it takes excessively more agricultural land to feed people a vegetarian diet. It’s your ‘intention’ that matters.

Their conclusion is, ‘prices on meat and other animal products will eventually need to reflect all this damage’.

Having lost the ‘meat is murder’ argument against civilisation’s stronger carnivores, the movement has entrenched itself in our political structure and instead adopted the line, ‘meat is murdering the planet’. It doesn’t matter that the claim is false, it looks good as a Twitter hashtag.

Just in case you think the meat tax is a bit of a windup, here is the current plan to tax your Sunday BBQ.

‘Our calculations suggest that the average retail price for meat in high-income countries would need to increase by 35 per cent-56 per cent for beef, 25 per cent for poultry, and 19 per cent for lamb and pork to reflect the environmental costs of their production. In the UK, where the average price for a 200g beef steak is around £2.80, consumers would pay between £3.80 and £4.30 at the checkout instead.’

And no – of course – this won’t impact the poor!

Their solution is to ‘redistribute revenue from a tax on the sale of meat and animal products evenly across the population in the form of lump sum payments at the end of the year.’

Which sounds awfully like the government giving poor people a ‘meat allowance’ to access a food that is currently cheap and unrestricted.

This is far more backwards, cruel, patronising, and repressive than any policy floated since the Enlightenment. It is a disgrace, an affront to basic decency, and an attack on our civil liberty to choose what we want to eat without checking in with government morality police.

Attaching a political agenda to food is not an original idea, but rather an extension of the commercial industry we saw promoted at COP26 where the ‘plant forward’ menus (that contained plenty of duck, chicken, beef, trout, and haggis), also sported a carbon footprint.

Levy, the company who organised the menu and makes its living rating the moral value – sorry – climate value of food, had this to say:

‘We are taking a plant-forward approach, using local and UK sourced in-season produce. Plant-based food products are one of the most effective ways for us to reduce emissions, so we increased the proportion of plant-based dishes, without compromising on variety, quality or taste.

‘Today, an average meal has a carbon footprint of 1.7 kg CO2e in the UK. According to the WWF, we need to get this number down below 0.5 kg CO2e to reach the goals defined in the Paris Agreement. By including climate labels on our menus, we aim to make it easier to achieve this goal – together.

‘The climate emergency is the biggest challenge of our lifetime and food has a key role to play in global emissions. Our target is to reach Net Zero in our Levy UK business by 2027 in the right way. COP26 will be a catalyst for learning and change across our business.’

At the time, I warned that this was a dangerous concept. By equating carbon to a form of calorie counting system, we are inviting government authorities and international bureaucracies to punish food producers, limit the sale of these products, place restrictions on their advertising, and add taxes to their purchase.

Apparently not happy with one-in-nine people starving to death on Earth, the war against carbon – which has rapidly expanded to the fertilisers required to grow food – is ensuring that artificial food shortages spread to the well-fed West.

Not only is our food likely to be rated, but also the people who buy it. This happens in China under the Social Credit System (eerily similar to a carbon credit system) in which shoppers have their government ‘trustworthiness’ rating docked if they do things like indulge in a few too many Mars bars.

Aside from my suggestion that we add a BullS**t rating next to politicians and a Child Slave Labour rating against renewables technologies – what does this carbon scale mean in practical terms for Australian shoppers?

It will surprise no one that the foods punished by this carbon scale are the foods humans require to be healthy – meat, dairy products, nuts, seafood, tea, chocolate, and salads all make the ‘evil’ list. A list that, it must be pointed out, rates fresh beef, lamb, and cheese far higher on the ‘evil’ scale than soft drinks and energy drinks.

While calorie counts help people control their expanding waistlines, the carbon rating is likely to propel well-meaning climate idiots into a critically nutrient deficient diet mostly grown in a lab by chemical companies.

The food being punished is also the food grown by Australian farmers, who will wrongly find their commercial market under siege by the all-powerful advertising nightmare that is political Climate Change. No doubt, when all the small farmers are pushed out of the market, those farms will be sold on the cheep to international corporations. It is reckless for any government to allow their domestic produce industry to be vandalised by such self-destructive ideology.

Academics appear oblivious to the obvious ‘unintended consequences’ of their activism, with Professor Scarborough of Oxford University telling BBC News:

‘It fills a huge gap. Manufacturers, caterers, and retailers have targets for reaching Net Zero and they don’t have the tools they need to get there. Now they have this data and some of them are talking to us about things they can do to help people move towards sustainable food purchasing.’

There is nothing sustainable about punishing fresh food producers for creating the best quality produce in human history. It is as if humanity reached the peak of its agricultural ability only to be cut off at the knees, kicked face down in the dirt, and mulched over by a new era of food made by chemical companies and international billionaires experimenting with genetic modification and animals manipulated by vaccines to ‘reduce their emissions’.

It’s all the worst bits of the dystopian horror writers tried to warn us about.

This is coming out of a climate industry that hand-waves the enormous destruction, toxic waste, and environmental harm caused by the production of renewables. It is an activist cause that ignores the reality that chemical and pharmaceutical companies are the largest carbon emitters in the world. And it is propped up by a coalition of billionaires in the World Economic Forum whose combined business enterprises make a larger ‘carbon footprint’ than the rest of the world’s peasants who are now being ordered to stop farming and eat bugs and chemical sludge.

We keep being told that farming is not sustainable, yet farming has endured for over 10,000 years. Less than 10 years into this climate cult Net Zero policy garbage and we have acute food shortages popping up all over the world, governments being overthrown, and economies crashing into the ground.

Net Zero is unsustainable.

Net Zero is lie told to us by the used car salesmen of the international political speaking tour in an effort to sell us junk food.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/eat-what-we-tell-you/

*********************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



17 August, 2022

The Green War on Clean Energy

In 2018, a radical new environmental group emerged in the United Kingdom. The loose-knit organization called itself Extinction Rebellion, or “XR,” and aimed to raise awareness of climate change through disruptive protests. XR activists staged dramatic “die-ins” and shut down London bridges and metro stations. The group’s leaders warned that climate change could “kill six billion people this century” and called for Britain to halt the use of fossil fuels virtually overnight. Like the Occupy Wall Street movement that inspired it, XR disdains detailed policy prescriptions. But its members generally scorn our modern, energy-intensive lifestyles, while also rejecting nuclear power and other high-tech approaches to reducing emissions. To save the planet, many believe, capitalism itself needs to be overthrown.

One of the group’s most charismatic spokespeople was Zion Lights. The daughter of Indian immigrants and a mother of two, Lights was a longtime environmental advocate. (The Telegraph once dubbed her “Britain’s greenest mum.”) But she found herself hard-pressed to defend XR’s more extreme claims. Hoping to understand the issues better, Lights returned to college, where she studied the debates surrounding nuclear power and related themes. “I started to realize that almost everything I had believed was wrong,” she told me, when I interviewed her recently for a podcast. When Lights tried to discuss her new perspective with her XR colleagues, she said, “I found there was this immense, immense resistance.”

Ultimately, Lights had to ask herself a painful question: “What if you’d dedicated most of your life to trying to save the planet,” she wrote in Quillette last year, “but then you realized that you may have actually—potentially—made things worse?” It’s a question that more environmentalists should grapple with today. Over the past half-century, their movement has scored world-changing victories in reducing air and water pollution, preserving wilderness, and protecting wildlife. But when it comes to fighting global warming, the issue that most environmentalists now see as the planet’s paramount threat, the green-policy elite has arguably done more harm than good.

That claim certainly sounds counterintuitive, but evidence shows that some of the activists’ favored policies—especially the single-minded focus on wind and solar facilities for making electricity—have been marginally effective, at best. Other policies, such as replacing gasoline and diesel fuel with biofuels made from plants, actually increase emissions. One of the environmental movement’s biggest self-described victories has been its long-running war against nuclear power, the only technology that demonstrates the capability to reduce dramatically a nation’s carbon footprint. Today, some green activists are fighting against the next generation of climate-friendly technologies, including advanced nuclear reactors and systems to capture and store the carbon in fossil fuels, or even scrub it from the atmosphere. Call it the green war on clean energy.

Extremists like Extinction Rebellion aren’t the only ones with misguided ideas about how best to reduce emissions. Last November, heads of state and representatives from global NGOs, financial firms, and energy companies gathered in Glasgow for COP26, the United Nations climate summit. Speakers unleashed their most impassioned language. “We are digging our own graves,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. British prime minister Boris Johnson compared the planet to James Bond, “strapped to a doomsday device” that threatens to “end human life as we know it.” Despite the catastrophism, conference attendees mostly stuck to a well-worn playbook. Governments promised to boost spending on renewable energy and restrict use of oil and gas. Financial organizations agreed to international guidelines that penalize fossil-fuel investments and favor green-energy projects.

While some countries promised to set even stricter targets for future emissions, China, the world’s biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, resisted demands to curtail its heavy coal consumption and pledged only to start reducing emissions sometime in the indefinite future. As the Associated Press noted, “the high aspirations and apocalyptic imagery at the start of the summit were soon met with a cold dose of reality.”

Nonetheless, global emissions do appear to be peaking. The more apocalyptic scenarios that some activists forecasted are unlikely to happen. In fact, most developed nations are slowly reducing their carbon footprints, though not at the aggressive rates they’ve promised. Ironically, these reductions in emissions often occur not because of the policies advocated at climate conferences but despite them.

Ted Nordhaus, founder of the eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute, is skeptical of the “global climate-industrial complex” on display at COP26. “A climate movement less in thrall to fever dreams of apocalypse would focus more on balancing long-term emissions reductions with growth, development, and adaptation in the here and now,” he writes. The extremists of Extinction Rebellion and similar groups demand “system change,” by which they mean dismantling free markets, creating alternatives to existing democratic institutions, and deliberately reducing living standards through a process they call “degrowth.” The COP26 technocrats don’t advocate anything that radical, but they, too, envision a more centralized, less growth-oriented model for society. Under the COP26 paradigm, entire sectors of the economy—energy, transportation, manufacturing, housing—would undergo wrenching transformations.

According to this vision, markets are not adequate to manage the necessary transitions. Instead, change must be driven through government regulation, supranational agreements between industry and NGOs, financial controls, and other top-down measures. Certain technologies—electric vehicles, say, or rooftop solar panels—must be heavily subsidized, while others—internal combustion engines, gas stoves—should be penalized or even banned. The use of fossil fuels should be curtailed by any means necessary, including pushing up prices by restricting drilling and pipeline construction. All policies must be geared to achieve “net-zero emissions” by 2050.

“Some greens are fighting against the next generation of clean technologies, including carbon capture.”

This is a staggeringly difficult goal, which would touch every aspect of modern life. Yet net-zero advocates too often reject or neglect the very policies most likely to help the world achieve it. As Nordhaus recently wrote in The Economist, the activist community “insists upon re-engineering the global economy without many of the technologies that most technical analyses conclude would be necessary, including nuclear energy, carbon capture and carbon removal.” In other words, green elites want to upend the lives of billions but show surprisingly little interest in whether their programs work. In some parts of the world, the climate lobby has already managed to enact policies that raise prices, hinder growth, and promote political instability—all while achieving only marginal reductions in emissions.

The problem starts with the movement’s blanket opposition to fossil fuels. For example, most environmentalists viscerally oppose fracking and natural-gas pipelines. The Biden administration moved to curtail U.S. gas drilling within days of taking office (one reason U.S. gas prices have roughly tripled since Biden became president). But in fact, since natural gas emits nearly 50 percent less carbon dioxide than coal, it is one of our best tools to bring down emissions in the short term, while also benefiting the economy. Alex Trembath, deputy director of the Breakthrough Institute, writes: “The U.S. fracking boom of 2008 onward tempered inflation, created hundreds of thousands of jobs during the worst recession in a century, and, yes, reduced carbon emissions by displacing much dirtier coal-fired power.”

Eco-pragmatists like Trembath see natural gas as a “bridge fuel” that can ease the transition to lower-carbon energy sources. (Soon, carbon capture and storage [CCS] technology could make it feasible to harness the energy in gas while putting much less carbon into the atmosphere.) But most environmental activists argue that we must phase out natural gas as rapidly as possible, replacing it almost exclusively with wind and solar power. Wind and solar power can help reduce carbon emissions, as long as they are part of a mix of energy sources. But renewable-energy champions tend to gloss over the huge challenges of trying to power the grid primarily with such on-again, off-again energy sources.

People understand, of course, that wind and solar facilities make power only when the wind blows or the sun shines. But even experts sometimes underestimate what a complex challenge this “intermittency” presents to grid operators. Since most wind and solar facilities sit idle most of the time, renewable-power producers have to overbuild production capacity massively. Renewable power also requires a whole new network of transmission lines in order to shuttle power from, say, sunny areas to cloudy ones. Renewable backers promise that imminent breakthroughs in battery technology will make intermittency a minor problem. In reality, while batteries can help grid operators manage short peaks in demand, they remain far too expensive to serve as a long-term backup. All these challenges mean that, while the “all-renewable” power-grid activists’ demand isn’t technically impossible, it would cost far more—and take far longer to build—than more balanced approaches.

Much more here:

https://www.city-journal.org/green-war-on-clean-energy ?

**********************************************************

Hawaii Electricity Prices To Skyrocket As Final Shipment Of Coal Arrives

Hawaii is receiving its final shipment of coal this week, which Gov. David Ige called a huge step forward in the state’s transition to clean energy. What he meant was that local are about to pay a lot more for basic essentials.

A law put in place a couple of years ago will finally shut down the island’s last coal burning power plant. And since coal is the dirtiest * but cheapest - source of power for Oahu, it means that all else equal, power prices are about to skyrocket.

“In its time, coal was an important resource for Hawai‘i and I’d like to thank the workers who have run our last remaining coal plant,” Ige said in a statement. “Renewable energy projects to replace coal are coming online with more on the way.”

“Even as we face challenges in making this transition, it’s the right move for our communities and planet. Most importantly, it will leave Hawai?i a better place for our children and grandchildren.”

So noble, Scandinavian teenagers would approve: there is just one problem: as KHON2’s Always Investigating reports, replacement power projects are behind schedule due to unexpected global events with supply chain issues, so Oahu residents should prepare to pay even more for electricity this fall. In other words, Europe's catastrophic experience with the "Green transition" where an entire continent moved to "energy alternatives" some 30 years before it was ready to replace fossil fuels, is coming to at least one American state.

In the meantime, consumers can either cut back on power, try solar and batteries, or pay more for oil-generated power — which costs as much as five times more than coal.

The Kapolei plant has been Oahu’s largest single generator for three decades, meeting about 16% of the island’s peak electricity demand. Its closure on Sept. 1 means eliminating 180 megawatts of power, or about one-tenth of what Oahu needs. There is no ready replacement for this source of energy which is about to go offline.

But wait, it gets funnier: one year ago, Hawaii was stunned to learn that the "green facility" which is replacing the Kapolei coal plant, the 185-MW Kapolei Energy Storage Facility, will be charging its "enormous battery" … with oil! In other words, Hawaiians will be trading one fossil fuel (coal) for another, albeit one far more expensive. Or as the chair of PUC, Jay Griffin, complained, Hawaiians are “going from cigarettes to crack."

“If there is not enough solar, wind, or battery storage energy to replace the AES plant, HECO would have to use oil instead to charge things like the upcoming 185-megawatt Kapolei Energy Storage Facility,” Pacific Business News reported.

It’s not a matter of “if,” however. The reality is there’s not enough wind, solar, or battery storage to replace the AES plant. Hawaiian Electric has made this quite clear in recent documents, noting that it would not be able to meet its year-two renewable target (75 percent) for “more than a decade.” - Source FEE Stories

Confused? Here is the simplified schematic:

* Oahu is permanently shutting down its final coal plant which provides 10-20% of the island's energy

* Its replacement is an energy storage facility which however will need oil to charge its battery

* Hawaii is effectively replacing dirty coal power with just as dirty oil power, which however is far more expensive.

Translation:another brilliantly executed "green" revolution, or as FEE put it:

The project is a wonderful demonstration of why we should be wary of giving central planners more power over energy security. It’s an example of a phenomenon explained by Ludwig von Mises: that government policies often have exactly the opposite effect of what was intended.

In an address delivered before the University Club in New York in 1950, the economist explained how government policies often backfire in ways that are predictable. Here is an example he offered:

“The government believes that the price of a definite commodity, e.g., milk, is too high. It wants to make it possible for the poor to give their children more milk. Thus it resorts to a price ceiling and fixes the price of milk at a lower rate than that prevailing on the free market. The result is that the marginal producers of milk, those producing at the highest cost, now incur losses. As no individual farmer or businessman can go on producing at a loss, these marginal producers stop producing and selling milk on the market. They will use their cows and their skill for other more profitable purposes. They will, for example, produce butter, cheese or meat. There will be less milk available for the consumers, not more.”

These outcomes are of course contrary to the intentions of lawmakers, Mises pointed out. They wanted to make it easier for people to purchase milk, not reduce the supply of milk. But the result is the same, he observed, and that is the lesson.

So what can we do about it at home besides getting ready to write bigger checks to Hawaiian Electric Company (HECO)?

HECO vice president Jim Kelly suggests to “really be embracing the idea of conservation,” especially during peak hours. Between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m., don’t be cranking on the air conditioner, taking long showers, running the oven, or whatever else that requires electricity and water. And while blaming Putin might provide a few minutes of gratification, it won't do anything for the accelerated depletion of your bank account.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/hawaii-electricity-prices-skyrocket-final-shipment-coal-arrives

*********************************************************

Biden’s Civil War on Energy Is Leaving Endless Collateral Damage in Its Wake

President Joe Biden has declared he will “end fossil fuel.” Presidents have declared war on everything from poverty to drugs, but his declaration is much more sinister. His is really a civil war.

The combatants are heavy-handed bureaucrats harassing fellow countrymen who want to do nothing more than fuel their car, cool their home, or use their skills to supply energy or other energy-based products for their neighbors.

dailycallerlogo
Unlike threats such as drugs or poverty, there is no widespread consensus on the “evil” of so-called fossil fuels. Biden’s espoused targets might be coal and oil corporations, but the collateral damage is you and me.

In deciding to “end” fossil fuels, the president—fueled by the left—has two avenues. He could attack the demand for affordable and efficient carbon-based fuels like coal, gas, and oil (try to encourage people to use less of them). Or he could attack the supply, making it harder to produce them in the first place. He has pursued both simultaneously—and as fast as Congress and the courts will let him.

Changing demand takes time—power plants are expensive and are in use for decades, and the average age of an automobile is more than 12 years. Change at that pace is not fast enough if you view gas and oil as an existential threat.

That’s why they’ve also done their best to limit supply. Unfortunately, when commodities are involved, price increases can be sharp and painful when supply and demand are imbalanced. The president’s civil war on gas, oil, and coal has victimized you—unless, perhaps, you are a Silicon Valley or Wall Street plutocrat who drives an electric car powered by your home solar panels.

What’s causing the high prices? Historically high crude oil prices (derived from tight supply) are a big part of the problem. So is refining capacity, which has dropped by a million barrels a day in the last few years. The president seems to recognize that high prices from reduced supply has backfired among the population. There was just too much collateral damage.

He’s now saying he’ll use “all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term[.]” Biden is also asking dictators around the world to increase their production of crude oil.

Meanwhile, the president and his allies continue attacking the supply of crude and refining here at home. They are slow-walking permits, stopping pipelines, and throwing shade at investors who want to provide the capital to increase production.

Investors are not eager to make big bets on these investments with the prospect of the industry’s elimination looming. The result is more expensive renewable power generation that is not always reliable. Look at the grids of California and Texas, two of the most wind and solar centric grids.

It’s hardly a coincidence that they experience legendary brownouts and even, sadly, system-wide failures. Meanwhile our geopolitical enemy, China, is expanding its coal production in one year, nearly equivalent to all the EU’s annual production, according to Gabriel Collins at the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University.

The economic damage from the civil war is not limited to the gas, oil, and coal Industries. Energy-intensive industries that would like to operate in the U.S.—the kind of good manufacturing jobs Biden says he likes: steel, automobiles, fertilizer—are all under threat as well. And so are those who have skills and knowledge about the internal combustion engine.

Biden is fighting this civil war in the name of “trusting the science”—which, after the last two years, should give everyone pause. But even if you do “trust the science” of climate change, all this pain would be for very little, if any, gain. One expert looked at what would happen under temperature models if the United States followed through on its Paris commitments.

He ran two scenarios and found a temperate reduction of between 0.008 and 0.03 degrees centigrade by 2100.

Mr. President, it is time to end this civil war on fossil fuels that is restricting supply, and thus killing jobs while raising prices. Your war will only boost China—and inflict pain on those who cannot afford it.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/11/bidens-civil-war-on-energy-is-leaving-endless-collateral-damage-in-its-wake

************************************************

NJ to Give $60M to Residents for Electric Vehicles

A handout to the Leftist elite

New Jersey will spend $60 million of taxpayer funds to give $4,000 to each person who buys an electric vehicle and $250 to install electric charger stations at their homes.

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy announced the funding, which includes $4 million set aside to incentivize apartment buildings and condominiums to install charging stations for their residents to use, The Star-Ledger reported.

The approximately $60 million will come from this year’s Clean Energy Fund, Murphy said, to combat climate change.

The funding comes in the third year of Murphy’s Charge Up New Jersey program, which the governor said resulted in more than 13,000 electric vehicles being purchased during the first two years thanks to taxpayer-funded incentives.

The state will spend another $4 million to give incentives to local governments to buy electric vehicles.

“By the close of last year, roughly 5 percent of all new vehicle sales nationwide were EVs,” Murphy said. “We want to help grow that share by getting more New Jerseyans into their first electric vehicles.”

Most EVs are more expensive than gas powered vehicles, with the average price recently hitting $66,000, whereas gasoline-powered cars average $48,043.

The people buying electric vehicles are already coming from a more financially stable place than lower-income people — a $4,000 subsidy isn’t going to make or break their decision to buy the vehicle.

Why should all of New Jersey’s taxpayers, including those who can’t afford cars and must rely on mass transit, subsidize the cost of a pricey automobile for people well off enough to afford them?

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/08/15/nj_to_give_60m_to_residents_for_electric_vehicles_847796.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



16 August, 2022

The Greens' hatred of nuclear power has played into Vladimir Putin's hands - and is based on a pack of lies about radiation deaths

Prepare for nuclear Armageddon. That is, if you believe what the likes of Greenpeace are saying about the consequences of fighting now taking place in Ukraine in the immediate vicinity of Europe's largest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia.

Last week, the plant — which Russian troops seized in the first month of their invasion but is still being operated by Ukrainian civilians — was repeatedly hit in shelling attacks.

Back in March, Greenpeace, the world's most well-funded environmentalist lobbying group, declared that a war in a country which contained such a plant 'poses a risk of potentially catastrophic damage that could render vast areas of the European continent, including Russia, uninhabitable for decades'.

It's not just anti-nuclear campaigners who are warning of mass extermination. The U.S. TV network NBC last week broadcast that the 'intensifying fighting around a nuclear power plant, Europe's largest, could put swathes of the continent at risk of a radiation catastrophe'.

The Washington Post, in its editorial comment, concurred: 'At Zaporizhzhia, it is five minutes to midnight.'

Fiction

The idea of shelling directed at a nuclear power station does seem like a TV drama designed to scare the living daylights out of us. But the vast majority of what passes for factual commentary on nuclear risks is actually fiction.

The reactors of the Zaporizhzhia plant (a much more advanced unit, in every way, than the Chernobyl reactor which caused the world's biggest nuclear incident in 1986) are protected by up to ten metres of concrete. They were built to withstand even a jumbo jet crashing into them.

There are no shells that could penetrate its carapace. Indeed, these colossal casings prevented any breach during the full-scale attack, involving shelling, by Russian troops when they seized the plant in March.

We must go back to the Chernobyl incident — and also what happened at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan in March 2011 — to appreciate how wilfully exaggerated are the scare stories now being unleashed by so-called 'Green' groups ideologically opposed to what happens to be the only non-intermittent form of mass energy production which is genuinely 'zero carbon'.

After the Fukushima meltdown, the New York Times published a piece that declared: 'By now close to one million people have died of causes linked to the Chernobyl disaster' — and argued that the consequences of Fukushima could 'far exceed Chernobyl in terms of the effects on public health'.

The 2019 TV mini series Chernobyl only added to the store of public terror: it portrayed the effects of radiation as contagious, as if it were a virus.

Now let's return to the much-neglected real world, in the form of a paper by Dr Robert Gale, a professor of haematology at London's Imperial College and an authority on nuclear and radiation accidents, who participated in rescue efforts at both Chernobyl and Fukushima. Last year, Dr Gale published 'Chernobyl at 35 years: An Oncologist's Perspective'.

He noted that 'sources without scientific credentials or with a political agenda predict hundreds of thousands, or even millions of cancers and cancer deaths' as a result of the radiation exposure following the Chernobyl incident.

His research, backed by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), concludes that there were 'about 7,000 excess thyroid cancers in children and adolescents living in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proximal to the accident site. Most were not fatal'.

This is not surprising as thyroid cancer has a mortality rate of two per cent.

And what of leukaemia, the cancer chiefly associated with radiation-related deaths in Japan in the wake of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Dr Gale's paper declares: 'We and others looked carefully for an increase in leukemias in the ten years after the Chernobyl accident but found no convincing evidence of one.'

His conclusion: 'There are few data to suggest that radiation released from Chernobyl increased cancer globally. There are also no convincing data that birth defects or genetic abnormalities were increased by radiation, despite what you might read elsewhere.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11111559/DOMINIC-LAWSON-Greens-hatred-nuclear-power-played-Vladimir-Putins-hands.html

******************************************************

CBS pushes study blaming climate change for rising childhood obesity rates

EVERYTHING iscaused by global warming

“CBS Mornings” pushed a recent study connecting climate change and hotter temperatures with childhood obesity rates in a ridiculed segment on Thursday.

Co-host Nate Burleson introduced the study published in the journal “Temperature” that argued “climate change, specifically warmer temperatures is making our children more inactive and more obese.”

Burleson said the study found that children were 30% less “aerobically fit” than their parents and claimed hotter temperatures were preventing kids from exercising outside.

Although the segment focused primarily on climate change, Burleson acknowledged that technology was likely a factor in rising childhood obesity cases.

“Now listen, it has been a lot hotter, and the weather has been crazy, but I think it also has to do with technology, you know. It’s one thing not to go outside, but these kids don’t go outside because they can stay inside and be on their phones, play video games, and be social without having to go outside and be social,” Burleson said.

Several Twitter users, however, attacked the segment for emphasizing “climate change” as a factor in childhood obesity without also recognizing coronavirus lockdowns.

“Do you think it could be… nah, couldn’t be. Must be the climate change,” Deseret News contributing writer Bethany Mandel joked.

Hans Mahncke, co-host of “Truth Over News” on EpochTV, tweeted, “They made kids fat by shutting schools, playgrounds, parks and beaches. Predictably, they’re now blaming ‘climate change.’ If there aren’t severe penalties for the fraudsters who pushed lockdowns, it’ll happen again.”

“Climate change? Ffs,” National Review journalist Claude Thompson wrote.

Former congresswoman Nan Hayworth tweeted, “NO. NO. NO. Many factors contribute to children’s lack of fitness, but climate change is NOT one of them. This is propaganda that CBS, as with all ‘mainstream’ media, pushes to scare Americans into accepting Government intervention–at any cost!!–against climate *apocalypse*”

Washington Free Beacon reporter Joe Gabriel Simonson attacked “CBS Mornings” directly for misrepresenting the study to push a climate agenda.

“[T]his seemed too insane even for left-wing climate scientists so I read the study summary. the authors don’t blame climate change for children getting fatter, but that fat children may have a harder time dealing with climate change because fat people don’t do as well in the heat,” Simonson tweeted.

A study posted in the National Library of Medicine in July found that a “significant weight increase was reported in the majority of subjects,” especially those with pre-existing weight issues, during coronavirus lockdowns.

It concluded, “Data analysis clearly demonstrated the detrimental impact of COVID-19 lockdown on children and adolescents’ body weight and BMI, children with pre-existing overweight/obesity being more at risk of gaining weight.”

https://nypost.com/2022/08/15/cbs-pushes-study-blaming-climate-change-for-rising-childhood-obesity-rates/

*************************************************

Eat beef, save the planet

Ian Plimer

Yet again, farmers are under attack. This time, it is the beef industry because, apparently, cattle burp and fart out methane and we’ll all fry-and-die because of the accelerated global warming produced by this methane. Is this fact or fiction? In my field of science, we often do mass balance calculations because material is added, exchanged, and lost during natural processes. Let’s do the same with the beef industry.

Grass grows by using carbon dioxide from the air as plant food. Why do climate activists want to reduce the amount of plant food in the atmosphere? Cattle eat grass, some grass remains as roots and stubble, and hence not all carbon atoms in grass end up in cattle. The carbon from grass is stored in meat, milk, intestines, bones, and skin and the amount of stored carbon increases with growth. Semi-solid waste materials from cattle fertilise grass for further recycling of carbon.

Humans are omnivores with teeth for cutting plants and animal flesh and then masticating to create a large surface area to assist digestion. We have the gut enzyme trypsin specifically for breaking down meat. Not all plant material can be broken down into nutrients which is why there is little nutritional value in us eating grass, stems, wood, or bark. Unlike cattle, humans cannot digest cellulose in grass. Bacterial and enzyme reactions in ruminant’s stomachs release the gas methane as burps and farts during digestion. This methane, a carbon-hydrogen compound, very quickly oxidises in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide and the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, water vapour.

For me, there is nothing like medium rare beef with a matching red-coloured fluid derived from releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by grape fermentation. The beef is digested in my body because of trypsin which breaks down meat into amino acids for circulation in my bloodstream. Meat fat ends up as brain food. Vegetarians and vegans ignore the benefits of human evolution and waste trypsin by not eating meat. In evolutionary terms, meat-eating has allowed the human brain to grow over time. In a past life when I took university student geological field trips, I noticed that the meat eaters were the first to the tops of mountains, vegetarians were struggling way behind and vegans were still trying to work out how to get out of the vehicle!

Some of the carbon in beef I eat is used and stored by my body, the rest is oxidised and exhaled. I breathe in air with 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide and exhale air with more than 4 per cent carbon dioxide. The gaseous waste product from cattle digestion is methane, and the gaseous waste product from human digestion is carbon dioxide. Some of the milk or cream I use in coffee and on morning porridge is stored in my flesh and bones as is the butter used in cooking.

When I’ve snapped my hobbles and decompose in a grave, most of my body carbon, including that from eating beef, will be released as methane and the rest will end up sequestered in soils. Blood and bone from cattle is used as a fertiliser and is sequestered in soil. Cattle skins are used to make leather which is sequestered into footwear and other leather goods. The whole process of going from grass to grave involves a carbon cycle and short-term sequestration of carbon atoms.

The number of carbon atoms returned to the atmosphere from beef farming is less than that removed by grass growth. Therefore, cattle farming and eating beef is a carbon sequestration process. If the popular mantra is used, we are saving the planet by eating beef.

If we do not eat meat, then grass decomposes anyway and releases methane into the atmosphere for oxidation to carbon dioxide and water vapour. If the grass is burned, carbon dioxide is returned to the atmosphere. The cycle of atmospheric carbon dioxide via meat production and digestion removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and then later releases this carbon dioxide back to its source. What’s the problem? Whether grass is used to grow meat, decomposed, or burned, no new carbon atoms are created in this carbon cycle and, by growing beef, some carbon atoms are removed from the cycle for short-term sequestration.

It is absolute nonsense to claim that beef farming accelerates hypothetical global warming. Carbon atoms are just being recycled. We are being conned with a scare campaign by unelected climate activists who want to control every aspect of our lives, including the source of our animal protein.

If beef is replaced on the menu by insects, then I’ll pass. I will get all my nutrients from 47 pints of Guinness, 2 glasses of milk, and one of orange juice each day.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/eat-beef-save-the-planet/

********************************************************

Oxfordshire County Council’s climate crusade

Something funny is in the water in Oxfordshire. In recent months councillors there have embarked on a spree of unorthodox eco-measures, no doubt encouraged by the Green party’s gains in local elections. Back in March, TV star Jeremy Clarkson led a protest of farmers, enraged by the County Council’s decision to only provide ‘plant-based’ food at council meetings, even though it cost taxpayers more.

And now, Mr S has discovered the latest taxpayer-funded wheeze: a new website called ‘Climate Action Oxfordshire’ with some intriguing advice for the local subjects who funded it. Among its advice includes telling local residents to ‘adopt a plant-based diet’, ‘choose waste-free menstrual products’ and ‘choose ethical banking and investments.’ In a snub to Oxfordshire’s rural farming communities, the website directs users to the Vegan Society, claiming ‘With 58 per cent of our food emissions coming from animal products, consider taking the steps to go vegan.’ It also asks ‘Why not try going veggie for a month and see how it goes?’ This is despite the fact that red meat produced in Britain is among the most sustainable in the world, with cattle and sheep accounting for just 3.7 per cent of UK carbon emissions when the carbon stored in grassland is included.

Climate Action Oxfordshire also calls for divestment from fossil fuel companies and financial institutions investing in such products. It writes ‘Banks are companies that are required to make a profit. Right now, funding fossil fuels is profitable – but losing customers is not profitable. By pledging to move your money to a sustainable financial institution, you will send a message to your bank that it must defund fossil fuels.’ It also urges ‘do not be silent’ and urges ‘writing to your MP… whether that’s supporting MPs who are already supporting an environmental agenda or questioning those who could do more.’ Bet those in Westminster look forward to receiving those…

Billing itself as ‘one stop shop for tackling climate change in Oxfordshire,’ the site is endorsed by all the local authorities (including Tory-controlled Cherwell) and the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. Launched in early July, a Freedom of Information request shows that the website attracted an average number of just 55 unique users a day in its first three weeks – a somewhat low figure for the 700,000 strong population of Oxfordshire. The Countryside Alliance is now writing to all district leaders asking them to remove their endorsements. A spokesman told Mr S that:

No council, especially one that allegedly supports our farmers should have anything to do with a website that seeks to undermine their hard work. Challenging assumptions about the benefits of some plant-based products and the casual denigration of livestock farming matters because, if they are allowed to go unchallenged they threaten the sustainability of both the planet and the countryside.

Sounds like the right-on commissars of Oxfordshire haven’t herd the last of this…

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/oxfordshire-county-councils-climate-crusade/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



15 August, 2022

Biden Administration, Wall Street Impede New Oil and Gas Investments

The oil and gas industry is looking to the future with caution, and plans for expanding production of fossil fuels appear to be limited.

At the Enercom Energy Investment conference in Denver this week, the oft-repeated mantra among CEOs was that they will use the bulk of their profits to pay down debt and return money to investors through stock buybacks and dividend payments, with significantly less emphasis on major new capital investments. In addition, executives highlighted their commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles for producing cleaner energy and addressing social justice issues.

As Democrats in Congress prepare to allocate $369 billion via the Inflation Reduction Act to subsidize electric cars and wind and solar energy, America’s oil and gas producers face an uphill battle. A shrinking supply of capital, a hostile regulatory environment, and shortages of materials and labor are creating significant hurdles against new drilling.

“I don’t want subsidies for our industry; we don’t need subsidies in our industry,” Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, told The Epoch Times. “We just don’t want barriers standing in the way of us providing the energy that people in the world want and need.”

Wall Street Steps Back from Fossil Fuel Financing
Among those barriers are banks and investors cutting back financing for new fossil fuel projects, due to both economic and political factors. In line with the ESG movement, 114 banks, collectively representing 38 percent of global banking assets, signed the Commitment Statement of the UN Net-Zero Banking Alliance, in which they pledged to “transition” their lending portfolios to reduce greenhouse-gas (GNG) emissions and reach net-zero GNG emissions by 2050 or sooner. American banks that signed this pledge include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.

Another global money club, Climate Action 100+, is “an investor-led initiative to ensure the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters take necessary action on climate change.” It has 700 investment companies as members, representing $68 trillion in assets, and includes asset managers such as BlackRock, State Street, Fidelity, Invesco, Fisher, and PIMCO; insurers such as Aegon, Allianz, and AXA; state pension funds like CalPERS, CalSTRS, New York State Common Retirement Fund, New York City Pension Funds, and Maryland State Retirement and Pension System; and university endowment funds from Harvard, MIT, and University of Rochester, among others.

In response, West Virginia and Texas recently barred banks that discriminate against fossil fuel companies from getting municipal banking contracts in their respective states. On July 28, for example, West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore announced that JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo would be placed on a Restricted Financial Institution List because they “are engaged in boycotts of fossil fuel companies, according to new state law, and are no longer eligible to enter into state banking contracts.”

“Each financial institution placed on the Restricted Financial Institution List today has published written environmental or social policies categorically limiting commercial relations with energy companies engaged in certain coal mining, extraction or utilization activities, rather than considering the financial or risk profile for each company,” Moore said in an official statement. “While the ‘Environmental, Social and Governance’ or ‘ESG’ movement might be politically popular in California or New York, financial institutions need to understand their practices are hurting people across West Virginia.”

Last week, 19 state attorneys general sent letters to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declaring that his efforts to impose the ESG agenda on companies whose shares it owns run counter to its fiduciary obligations to pensioners, intentionally harm America’s energy companies, and, to the extent that financial companies collude in this effort, raise anti-trust concerns. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with approximately $10 trillion in assets under management.

In a letter to Fink, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote, “BlackRock appears to use the hard-earned money of our states’ citizens to circumvent the best possible return on investment, as well as their vote. BlackRock’s past public commitments indicate that it has used citizens’ assets to pressure companies to comply with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement that force the phase-out of fossil fuels, increase energy prices, drive inflation, and weaken the national security of the United States.”

Global ESG Clubs Leave Oil and Gas Industry ‘Starved for Capital’

Oil and gas executives say the push to divest from fossil fuels by global organizations like Climate Action 100+, the UN Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero is having its intended effect.

“Our industry is being starved for capital,” Anthony Gallegos, CEO of Independence Contract Drilling, told The Epoch Times, noting that banks are increasingly unwilling to provide revolving lines of credit or asset-based lending facilities [ABLFs] to the oil and gas industry. “There’s probably a third as many banks today that are willing to provide revolvers and ABLFs to [oil and gas] service companies compared to what there would have been six years ago,” he said. “There are investors, there are endowments, there are limited partnerships, some of which have historically invested in energy, that today have a mandate that they cannot make investments in fossil fuel industries.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-administration-wall-street-impede-new-oil-and-gas-investments_4659685.html

**************************************************

Climate Change, Is t Impacting Key European crops

A search of Google news for the phrase “climate change,” today turns up a story in Trade Finance Global (TFG) which claims climate change is harming key European crops, exacerbating a food crisis created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This claim is wrong. In the story, TFG made the all too common, yet scientifically unjustifiable, mistake of conflating a single season’s suboptimal weather with long-term climate change. Data shows over the past 30 years, the period over which climate change is measured, each of the crops discussed in the TFG article have increased dramatically.

In the article titled, “‘Heatflation’ warning as 2022 EU crop harvests affected by climate change,” TFG reporter Lisa Mendes writes:

As much of Europe bakes in the latest heatwave, fears are growing about what’s being dubbed ‘heatflation’ – climate change-driven staple crop losses that could see already inflated food prices reach new highs this autumn, deepening the cost-of-living crisis.

A lack of spring rainfall, combined with drought and freak storms, have spoiled crops in Italy, France, and Spain, with many farmers and agricultural associations warning that this year’s continental crop yields will be significantly smaller than usual.

Already, continental yields of crops such as soybean, sunflower, and maize were 9 percent below average, according to an EU bulletin published last month.

Attributing a single year’s weather events and crop declines to climate change is illegitimate. As explained in numerous previous Climate Realism posts, here and here, for example, weather is not climate.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration clearly defines weather as “[R]eflect[ing] short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location. … Weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season.”

The standard period for recognizing a change in climate is an average change or trend in conditions for a location or region of 30 years or more, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization.

There has been no consistent trend or change in Europe’s climate over the past 30 years. Also, although farmers may be reporting below average production for the crops discussed in the TFG article this year, as history shows, and as any long-time farmer or farm family could tell Mendes if she had asked, it is common for crop production to wax and wane along with variable weather conditions from year to year. A single down year for crop production is not evidence of climate change.

Data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization undermine any claim that climate change has negatively impacted the production of corn (maize), soybeans, or sunflowers across Europe amid modest warming since 1990. FAO’s crop tracker finds for Europe, between 1990 and 2020:

Maize production increased by more than 127 percent;
Soybean production grew by more than 218 percent;
Sunflower production expanded by more than 184 percent.

Europe crop production

Europe is suffering under a heatwave and associated drought. However, such events have been common throughout the continent’s history. A single year of hot, dry weather conditions does not constitute proof of climate change, nor does a single year’s crop decline. Weather and crop production are both notoriously fickle, as Mendes and TFG should know. Real world data indicate long term weather conditions have not significantly changed across Europe, and crop production has, in fact, increased. The idea that climate change is causing “staple crop losses” is just false.

https://climaterealism.com/2022/08/wrong-trade-finance-global-weather-not-climate-change-is-impacting-key-european-crops/

***************************************************

Weather, Not Climate Change, Caused Yellowstone Flooding

An article in the Billings Gazette claims that severe flooding in Yellowstone National Park will become more common and frequent due to climate change. This claim is false. Data does not show any increase in flood events amid modest warming. The atmospheric river event this spring was not unprecedented, and weather events themselves cannot be proof of climate change.

The article, “The Yellowstone flood was a historic disaster. Climate change means it won’t be the last,” written by Casper-Star Tribune reporter Nicole Pollack, propagates unsubstantiated claims from climate alarmists. She neglects to mention any of the conflicting data.

Pollack says the odds of having an extreme flooding event are higher today than they ever have been. She quotes several scientists who repeat the same idea, that climate change makes “bigger, faster” floods more likely than before. Besides this being an unfalsifiable and untestable claim, it also conflicts with what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says about flooding.

Climate at a Glance: Floods points out that the IPCC says there is only “low confidence” that there is even a “sign” of change to the frequency or severity of flooding. It has “low confidence” that climate change impacts flooding at all. Some regions of the world have seen more flooding, others less, it cannot be attributed to global climate trends.

A study looking at flooding in the U.S. and Europe in the Journal of Hydrology says that “The number of significant [flooding] trends was about the number expected due to chance alone.”

Despite population growth in areas near water sources like rivers and lakes, the cost of flooding the U.S. as a proportion of GDP has gone down over time. (See Figure 1 below)

Two events coincided to create this June’s Yellowstone flooding: the heavy rain due to an atmospheric river event, and preexisting late-season snowpack. Since global warming is supposed to reduce springtime snow extent, it can’t be blamed for the latter.

As for the former; atmospheric river events, as explained by meteorologist Anthony Watts in a Climate Realism post, “Science Demonstrates Media Claims the Washington and British Columbia Floods Were Caused by ‘Climate Change’ Is False,” are not always caused by warming, either. Such was the case with flooding in British Columbia during the fall of 2021, where weather was cool to normal along the path of the atmospheric river. The same can be said for Yellowstone—a cool spring was present when the river formed. These are localized weather events, not climate, which is an average of weather over a 30-year period.

Also notable is that most of the flooding caused by this most recent atmospheric river was in Montana, where the precipitation trend has been relatively stable since 1900, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The same dataset shows that the state record for highest annual precipitation is still held by the year 1927.

Every time an interesting or record-breaking weather event happens, the media and alarmists flock to attribute it to climate change, regardless of what the long-term data show. As opposed to educating the public, all this kind of coverage does is confuse and frighten people. The goal is likely to scare people so badly, they will end up supporting government policies that are supposed to somehow stop bad weather from happening. Climate alarmism can only exist where real data is ignored or hidden. In this case, data on flooding simply does not back up the story.

https://climaterealism.com/2022/08/no-billings-gazette-weather-not-climate-change-caused-yellowstone-flooding/

**************************************************

96% of U.S. climate data is corrupted

A new study, Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official U.S. Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed, finds approximately 96 percent of U.S. temperature stations used to measure climate change fail to meet what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) considers to be “acceptable” and uncorrupted placement by its own published standards.

The report, published by The Heartland Institute, was compiled via satellite and in-person survey visits to NOAA weather stations that contribute to the “official” land temperature data in the United States. The research shows that 96% of these stations are corrupted by localized effects of urbanization – producing heat-bias because of their close proximity to asphalt, machinery, and other heat-producing, heat-trapping, or heat-accentuating objects. Placing temperature stations in such locations violates NOAA’s own published standards (see section 3.1 at this link), and strongly undermines the legitimacy and the magnitude of the official consensus on long-term climate warming trends in the United States.

“With a 96 percent warm-bias in U.S. temperature measurements, it is impossible to use any statistical methods to derive an accurate climate trend for the U.S.” said Heartland Institute Senior Fellow Anthony Watts, the director of the study. “Data from the stations that have not been corrupted by faulty placement show a rate of warming in the United States reduced by almost half compared to all stations.”

NOAA’s “Requirements and Standards for [National Weather Service] Climate Observations” instructs that temperature data instruments must be “over level terrain (earth or sod) typical of the area around the station and at least 100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface.” And that “all attempts will be made to avoid areas where rough terrain or air drainage are proven to result in non-representative temperature data.” This new report shows that instruction is regularly violated.

https://climaterealism.com/2022/07/study-96-of-u-s-climate-data-is-corrupted/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



14 August, 2022

Europe’s heatwaves, droughts put focus on climate change risks

This is really brain-dead stuff. Have we forgotten that global warming is supposed to be global? And how many halves does the globe's atmosphere have? TWO. So if the Northern hemisphere droughts are caused by global warming, there must be similar droughts in the Southern hemisphere too.

Except that there aren't. I live in Australia in the Southern hemisphere. And Australia is being plagued by record and very damaging FLOODS. So globally, the weather is on average normal. Air and ocean currents move weather about so what seems to be happening is that they have moved Northern precipitation Southward, with no overall change involved

Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are enduring severe droughts this summer.

Italy’s worst drought in decades has reduced Lake Garda, the country’s largest, to near its lowest level ever recorded and warming the water to temperatures that approach the average in the Caribbean Sea.

Northern Italy has not seen significant rainfall for months, and snowfall this year was down 70 percent, drying up vital waterways such as the Po River, which flows across Italy’s agricultural and industrial heartland.

Successive heatwaves have also renewed the focus on climate change risks for Europe.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre warned this week that drought conditions will get worse and potentially affect 47 percent of the continent.

Andrea Toreti, a senior researcher at the European Drought Observatory, said a drought in 2018 was so extreme that there were no similar events in the last 500 years, “but this year, I think, it is really worse”.

For the next three months, “we see still a very high risk of dry conditions over Western and Central Europe, as well as the UK”, Toreti said.

Current conditions result from long periods of dry weather caused by changes in world weather systems, said meteorologist Peter Hoffmann of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research near Berlin.

“It’s just that in summer we feel it the most,” he said. “But actually the drought builds up across the year.”

Climate change has lessened temperature differences between regions, sapping the forces that drive the jet stream, which normally brings wet Atlantic weather to Europe, he said.

A weaker or unstable jet stream can bring unusually hot air to Europe from North Africa, leading to prolonged periods of heat. The reverse is also true when a polar vortex of cold air from the Arctic can cause freezing conditions far south of where it would normally reach.

Hoffmann said observations in recent years have all been at the upper end of what existing climate models predicted.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/13/europes-heatwaves-droughts-put-focus-on-climate-change-risks#:~:text=Successive%20heatwaves%20have%20also%20renewed,47%20percent%20of%20the%20continent .

******************************************

Climate warrior Dems silent on Manchin bill's oil and gas leasing provisions

Democrats who have loudly opposed Big Oil and fossil fuel development on public lands were silent Friday when asked about the Inflation Reduction Act's energy provisions.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., introduced in late July, includes a series of provisions requiring the federal government to hold oil and gas lease sales spanning millions of acres on federal lands and waters. The legislation, which is backed by President Biden, was passed along party lines Sunday in the Senate.

"This is a climate suicide pact," Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at environmental group Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), said after Manchin unveiled the bill. "It’s self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction."

"The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country, and it’s a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels," he continued.

The bill would require the federal government to reinstate Lease Sale 257, an offshore lease sale stretching across 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico, and to hold three other offshore lease sales that the Biden administration abruptly canceled in May. The sales include one in the Cook Inlet of Alaska across 1.09 million acres.

Another provision of the bill tethers new renewable energy leases to additional fossil fuel leases. Under the bill, the Interior Department is prohibited from issuing wind or solar permits unless it issued an onshore oil and gas permit during the previous 120-day period and at least two million acres of land was leased for oil and gas development during the previous year.

Several environmental and conservation groups, in addition to the CBD, have also expressed their concern with the bill over the last two weeks. EarthJustice, the Climate Justice Alliance and Friends of the Earth ripped the provisions benefiting oil companies.

"Friends of the Earth stands in solidarity with the climate justice and environmental justice organizations and communities that are expressing deep concern or opposition to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022," Erich Pica, the president of the environmental protection group, said last week. "Their voices must be honored and heard. The process of drafting this legislation was anti-democratic and non-transparent."

Friends of the Earth filed a lawsuit last year challenging the Department of the Interior's plans to move forward with Lease Sale 257. In January, a federal court sided with Friends of the Earth and the Biden administration opted against appealing the ruling.

However, prominent Democratic lawmakers who have been critics of the oil industry have chosen to stay silent on the provisions.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/climate-warrior-dems-silent-manchin-bills-oil-gas-leasing-provisions

**********************************************

California Gov. Gavin Newsom looks to extend life of state's last operating nuclear power plant

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing to extend the life of the state’s last operating nuclear power plant by at least five to 10 years to maintain reliable power supplies in the climate change era.

A draft bill obtained Friday by The Associated Press said the plan would allow the plant to continue operating beyond a scheduled closing by 2025.

The draft proposal also includes a possible loan for operator Pacific Gas & Electric for up to $1.4 billion.

The proposal was confirmed by Newsom spokesman Anthony York. The bill says impacts of climate change are occurring sooner than anticipated and are simultaneously driving up electrical demand while reducing power supplies.

The draft was obtained ahead of a California Energy Commission meeting on the state’s energy needs and the role the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant could play.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-gov-gavin-newsom-looks-extend-life-states-last-operating-nuclear-power-plant

************************************************

Green Energy Credits are Currently a Tax Shelter for Wall Street Banks

Tax credits have been a go-to move for the U.S. government to incentivize renewable energy project developers for years. Yet substantial profits are ending up in the pockets of the corporate banking industry.

As of last year, the renewable tax equity market represents a $20 billion industry for big banks.

The timing is auspicious for financial lenders since President Joe Biden’s retooled Build Back Better Act includes an additional $550 billion in clean energy incentives.

Historically, credits for renewable projects have been used to entice new investors to jump on the green energy bandwagon.

Yet because of the lack of practical use on the front end, many entrepreneurs seek tax equity investment partners in exchange for working capital to get the project rolling.

“Similar situation as the movie industry; you need the banks to fund the projects, so they get the tax breaks,” certified public accountant (CPA) Paul Miller told The Epoch Times.

Miller is the managing partner of Miller & Co, and explained energy projects can cost billions of dollars and it’s challenging to develop them without having a financial institution on board.

“If you were an investor, you’d benefit from these tax savings, which again why a lot of billionaires are [involved] in these investments.”

When it comes to tax breaks, new companies looking to get into green energy usually don’t owe money when they start building. So many solar and wind farm companies enter with a clean slate.

That means if the developers want to get any mileage out of the credits the government is offering, a third party financial partner—generally known as a tax equity partner—is needed.

And the majority of these are key players in the corporate banking industry.

Between 2020 and 2021, more than 50 percent of the tax equity market was controlled by two banks: JP Morgan and Bank of America.

Other legacy financial institutions with sizeable investments in the tax equity market include Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, and Credit Suisse.

“All tax credits in the United States are geared towards the largest taxpayers … This is because the tax code contains significant hurdles,” Warren Kirshenbaum told The Epoch Times.

Kirshenbaum is the CEO of Cherry Tree Group, which specializes in helping people sell their tax credits while getting individuals, trusts, and closely-held corporations the same benefits enjoyed by more prominent financial players.

He explained larger taxpayers have routinely used the vast majority of available tax credits, making it harder for companies who pay fewer taxes to qualify and secure the incentive credits.

“This has led to smaller developers not being able to secure tax equity financing, which can affect the marketplace,” Kirshenbaum said.

Some industry experts think the current structure for tax credits is a hindrance for small developers and community-scale projects.

“With the current set-up, most developers don’t have the option to keep the credits,” tax specialist Kari Brummond told The Epoch Times.

Brummond says developers usually need cash upfront for their projects, but if they were able to keep the credits, they would end up with more money in the long run.

“They end up losing a lot in fees when they sell the credits to investors,” she said.

Bank investors usually snap up low-income housing and historic tax credits first. However, Kirshenbaum notes that renewable energy credits have become a more popular investment in recent years because it’s claimable in one tax year. Low-income housing and historic tax credits are 10-year and five-year credits, respectively.

“Additionally, the accelerated and bonus depreciation rules for solar assets allow the claiming of an enormous amount of depreciation in the first year or two which is quite advantageous to taxpayers,” Kirshenbaum said.

And while many experts assert big banks have been offered an unintentional tax shelter in the form of green energy incentives, some disagree.

Director of renewable energy and sustainable technologies for the tax equity investment firm Foss & Company, Bryen Alperin, told The Epoch Times the government is still incentivizing renewable energy projects, which was the ultimate goal a the end of the day.

“They [the government] have determined that rather than collecting the tax revenue, then writing cash grants to renewable energy projects, it’s more efficient to incentivize taxpayers to directly invest in the renewable energy projects.

“The taxpayer is still paying into the ‘social good’ with their money, they just have more control over how it is used,” Alperin said.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/green-energy-credits-are-currently-a-tax-shelter-for-wall-street-banks_4660889.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



August 12, 2022

The ridiculous predictions of the reef dementors

Peter Ridd

Harry Potter fans know what a Dementor is. To quote Remus Lupin it is a creature that:

"glories in decay and despair, they drain peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them… get too near a Dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked out of you."

I am reminded of Dementors when I hear the usual scaremongers claim the reef is still doomed despite the wonderful news last week that the Great Barrier Reef recorded the highest amount of coral since records began in 1986. The reef has never had more coral despite supposedly having suffered four devastating, unprecedented bleaching events since 2016 – all due to climate change.

Corals take five to ten years to recover so it is clear that reef-science institutions have been misleading the world about the bleaching events. How could there have been up to 93 per cent coral loss in 2016 alone, and much more in 2017, 2020 and 2022 if we now have record high coral cover?

We should look at the predictions of the reef-Dementors in 2012 when it had relatively low coral cover after a couple of huge cyclones passed across the reef. The waves from the cyclones killed corals in an area bigger than Belgium and Holland – not huge by Australian standards, but still a fair bit of coral. Eminent Dementors stated:

"coral cover in the central and southern regions of the GBR is likely to decline to 5–10% by 2022. The future of the GBR therefore depends on decisive action."

This has been proven to be a ridiculous prediction. It’s not just a bit wrong – it’s as wrong as it possibly could be. The reef’s coral cover in 2022 is roughly four times higher than predicted, and now at record levels. The only decisive action taken was by the coral – it grew back, like it always does.

But the reef Dementors can still find ways to scare children even with this great news. Apparently, the species composition of the reef is changing. It is becoming dominated by plate and staghorn corals that are the most susceptible to bleaching and cyclones. So, all this growth has made the reef very susceptible to future damage from climate change. It is doubtless at a ‘tipping point’ – only one major event away from oblivion. I already feel hope draining from my soul. Here was I thinking more coral was a good thing.

Let us ignore the fact that these delicate staghorn and plate/tabular corals are the most spectacular of the reef and provide safe harbour for the iridescent fish that give the reef its colour – and we have more of them than ever. Ignore even that this type of coral is the first to be damaged by cyclones – the biggest cause of temporary coral loss – and the first to recover, by definition changing the species mix on a reef.

Better to remember the Patronus Charm – the spell to counter a Dementor – which is to recall what the Dementors said after the ‘devastating’ 2016 climate bleaching event:

"Fast-growing staghorn and tabular corals suffered a catastrophic die-off, transforming the three dimensionality and ecological functioning… (of the reef and)… changing (the reef) forever, as the intensity of global warming continues to escalate."

So, in 2016 the loss of staghorn coral was a disaster but in 2022 its regrowth is a disaster. And the change that was supposed to last ‘forever’ lasted until 2022. There is only one word for this. Ridiculous.

To deal with Dementors, Harry Potter practiced his magic on another creature called a Boggart. Boggarts have no definite physical form but appear as the thing you most fear – for Harry, this was a Dementor. To destroy a Boggart, you must make it appear laughable. The magic spell, with correct spelling, is Riddikulus. Thanks J.K.!

Reef scaremongers are not fearsome Dementors, they are common-or-garden Boggarts and it is time to laugh at them. They are nothing to fear as their credibility has been destroyed by the wonderful condition of the reef.

They have been crying wolf since the 1960s when they said the reef was doomed from crown-of-thorns starfish plagues. Their desperate attempts to find bad news in the latest fabulous statistics make them look even more pathetic. Boggart sycophants in mainstream media who practise the dark arts of deceiving the public, withholding vital information, and scaring children must also be ridiculed.

Be in no doubt that Boggarts fear derision. In 2018, I was fired from James Cook University after breaking the rules of the Ministry of Magic by casting a Riddikulus spell which demonstrated major quality assurance problems in reef-science.

It showed that a reef that was supposed to have no coral was flourishing, and a warming climate is almost certainly good for reefs because corals grow faster in warmer water. One of the many things the university Boggarts formally charged me with was ‘satire’ for making fun of them.

The biggest hurdle stopping people accepting the latest statistics showing the reef is fine, is the corollary of the proposition. If the reef is fine, the scientific institutions have deceived us for decades. To most people this is worse than the thought that the reef is doomed. We have been told since childhood that scientists must always be believed. The idea that some are untrustworthy is too horrible to contemplate. For most people, their Boggart is that the institutions they trusted are corrupt. I understand that but we must help them laugh.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/riddikulus-reef-dementors

**********************************************

Delaware: What a coral reef misconduct claim says about climate science

On Monday, I wrote here about how the Great Barrier Reef is defying predictions of its own demise, bouncing back from a mass bleaching event last year to show the greatest vegetation cover in 37 years of observations. Now comes news that a prominent scientist involved in some of the doom-mongering work over coral reefs has been found guilty by her own university of misconduct in her research.

According to the draft report of an investigative committee convened by the University of Delaware – and seen by Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science – Danielle Dixson fabricated and falsified data relating to fish behaviour and the health of coral reefs. The report states: ‘The Committee was repeatedly struck by a serial pattern of sloppiness, poor recordkeeping, copying and pasting within spreadsheets, errors within many papers under investigation, and deviation from established animal ethics protocols.’ Dixson has stated she ‘vigorously denies all and any allegations of wrongdoing’ and will appeal.

The Delaware University committee has asked for three of her papers, published in prominent journals, to be withdrawn. One of them, for example, found that fish attracted to healthy reefs were repelled by the kinds of seaweeds which grow on reefs which have previously been degraded. Other papers have claimed that rising acidification of the oceans, linked to rising global temperatures, can disorientate fish, causing them to swim towards their predators. Whistleblowers say their suspicions were aroused when they calculated that Dixson would not have had enough time to collect the data recorded in some of her papers. Dixson’s lawyer claims that a group of scientists had ‘targeted’ Dixson by sharing the accusations and prevented her from having a fair hearing.

The University of Delaware’s findings are, of course, no reflection on the work of many other scientists who have warned that rising ocean temperatures threaten the future of coral reefs. However, they are a reminder that science does not become settled just because a paper appears in a peer-reviewed journal. With passions running so high in the climate debate, and with so much at stake over climate policy, the need to enforce rigour in scientific research has never been greater.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/what-a-coral-reef-misconduct-claim-says-about-climate-science/

*********************************************

Green Rare-Earths Push Destroys Myanmar Forest

The birds no longer sing, and the herbs no longer grow. The fish no longer swim in rivers that have turned a murky brown. The animals do not roam, and the cows are sometimes found dead.

The people in this northern Myanmar forest have lost a way of life that goes back generations. But if they complain, they, too, face the threat of death.

This forest is the source of several key metallic elements known as rare earths, often called the vitamins of the modern world. Rare earths now reach into the lives of almost everyone on the planet, turning up in everything from hard drives and cellphones to elevators and trains. They are especially vital to the fast-growing field of green energy, feeding wind turbines and electric car engines. And they end up in the supply chains of some of the most prominent companies in the world, including General Motors, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Tesla and Apple.

But an AP investigation has found that their universal use hides a dirty open secret in the industry: Their cost is environmental destruction, the theft of land from villagers and the funneling of money to brutal militias, including at least one linked to Myanmar’s secretive military government. As demand soars for rare earths along with green energy, the abuses are likely to grow.

“This rapid push to build out mining capacity is being justified in the name of climate change,” said Julie Michelle Klinger, author of the book “Rare Earths Frontiers,” who is leading a federal project to trace illicit energy minerals. “There’s still this push to find the right place to mine them, which is a place that is out of sight and out of mind.”

The AP investigation drew on dozens of interviews, customs data, corporate records and Chinese academic papers, along with satellite imagery and geological analysis gathered by the environmental non-profit Global Witness, to tie rare earths from Myanmar to the supply chains of 78 companies.

About a third of the companies responded. Of those, about two-thirds didn’t or wouldn’t comment on their sourcing, including Volkswagen, which said it was conducting due diligence for rare earths. Nearly all said they took environmental protection and human rights seriously.

Some companies said they audited their rare earth supply chains; others didn’t or required only supplier self-assessments. GM said it understood “the risks of heavy rare earths metals” and would source from an American supplier soon.

Tesla did not respond to repeated requests for comment, and Mercedes said they contacted suppliers to learn more in response to this story. Apple said “a majority” of their rare earths were recycled and they found “no evidence” of any from Myanmar, but experts say in general there is usually no way to make sure.

Just as dirty rare earths trickle down the supply chains of companies, they also slip through the cracks of regulation.

In 2010, in response to war in the Congo, Congress required companies to disclose the origin of so-called conflict minerals — tantalum, tin, gold and tungsten — and promise their sourcing does not benefit armed groups. But the law does not cover rare earths. Audits are left up to individual companies, and no single agency is held accountable.

The State Department, which leads work on securing the U.S. rare earths supply, did not respond to repeated requests for comment. But experts say the government weighs the regulation of rare earths against other green goals, such as the sales and use of electric vehicles. With ongoing negotiations in Congress, the issue has become increasingly touchy, they say.

Rare earths are also omitted from the European Union’s 2021 regulation on conflict minerals. A European Commission statement noted gaps in oversight of the supply chain stretching to Europe, and said “it is yet unclear how” a Chinese push to regulate rare earths will work.

With no regulation or alternatives, companies have quietly continued shipping rare earths without environmental, social and governance audits, known as ESG.

“What would be the result if now the world would say, ‘We want to do ESG audits on all rare earths production’?” said Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade & Investment, which does mineral and metal supply chain management. “The result would be that 70% of production would need to be closed down.”

https://apnews.com/article/technology-forests-myanmar-75df22e8d7431a6757ea4a426fbde94c

********************************************

Australia: The Greens are the biggest threat to black/white reconciliation

What do senators Pauline Hanson and Lidia Thorpe have in common? Not a lot it would seem although both routinely engage in haughty displays, dog-and-pony shows in the Senate chamber. But there is one issue that unites them. They are both opposed to the constitutional recognition of First Australians.

In May 2017, 250 delegates from the 100-plus indigenous nations gathered at Uluru for the National Constitution Convention. It was the largest assembly of First Nations leaders in recorded Australian history and at the end of it came the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

The Uluru Statement is a 440-word invitation from First Australians for us all to join them on a journey of reconciliation. It was presented to the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then Opposition leader, Bill Shorten in traditional artistic form.

The statement, in part, reads:

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.

In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.

The Makarrata Commission is sometimes loosely associated with a treaty, but it is more than that. Makarrata is a word from the Yolngu language in northeast Arnhem Land that has many layered meanings, but in the context of the Uluru Statement, it is a meeting or meetings where a negotiated settlement is reached through truth telling.

Voice. Treaty. Truth.

As the delegates met at Uluru to prepare a united message, seven of them walked out in a huff. They appeared before the media later that day. They were all from New South Wales and Victoria. One of them, Lidia Thorpe, then a Greens candidate for the Victorian Legislative Assembly in the seat of Northcote said, “We as sovereign First Nations people reject constitutional recognition. We do not recognise occupying power or their sovereignty, because it serves to disempower, and takes away our voice.

“We need to protect and preserve our sovereignty. “We demand a sovereign treaty with an independent sovereign treaty commission, and appropriate funds allocated.”

The Referendum Council in Uluru acknowledged the process was a difficult one but continued on. Anangu delegate and Uluru resident, Alison Hunt reminded the assembly that the conference was being held on sacred land, “where you are talking and standing on, and visitors need to understand that.

“We have to be united,” she said.

The Australian Greens were the first political party to endorse the Uluru Statement from the Heart. But in 2020 when Lidia Thorpe filled the casual vacancy left by former party leader, Richard di Natale, that changed.

In election mode at the National Press Club in April, Greens leader Adam Bandt, a white Australian lawyer turned politician, determined the sequence must be altered. Not voice, treaty and truth but truth, treaty and voice.

“If we really want success to happen,” Bandt said at the NPC. “It’s a mistake to do it in any other order. We need to do it in that order where we tell the truth, then strike a treaty, and that will put us in the best position for reforms like the Voice to succeed.”

That remark is the very definition of paternalism, up-ending an agreement made by the overwhelming majority of Australia’s indigenous leaders, seeking to impose the narrow view of an absolute minority.

With Thorpe as the deputy leader of the party in the Senate, there has been another element to the party’s factional colour chart of red greens and blue greens. Now there is the group led by Thorpe known colloquially as “Blak Greens.”

The Greens’ shift came amid allegations of bullying and harassment of a number of its indigenous members who wanted to stay true to the Uluru Statement. In an op-ed for Nine Media published in the wake of Bandt’s NPC address, James Blackwell, a Wiradjuri man and researcher at Australian National University, wrote that followers of the Uluru Statement were no longer welcome in the Greens.

Blackwell claimed he had suffered bullying and harassment from senior party members including preselected federal candidates and this led him to resign his membership of the party.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Jill Gallagher, AO, a Gunditjmara woman also resigned from the party believing, “the Greens had no right to reorder the sequence of the Uluru Statement.”

As Indigenous Minister Linda Burney has said repeatedly, a great deal of community consultation is required before a referendum question goes before the parliament but the greatest threat to a successful referendum leading to an Indigenous voice comes from the Left.

The question is, when the parliament considers and votes on the wording of the referendum question, will Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson be voting as one in an attempt to reject it in the Senate? Adam Bandt has said he won’t block the legislation but the party’s position on the Uluru Statement has swung wildly in the space of five years.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-greens-are-the-biggest-threat-to-reconciliation/news-story/d0f0c31665c793da27274490ec8469c9

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 8:16 PM 0 comments

Thursday, August 11, 2022

Germany debates lifting fracking ban as it confronts energy supply crisis

Germany’s energy supply crisis has sparked a national political debate about whether the country should lift its ban on fracking to allow development of untapped natural-gas reserves.

As a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine, there is growing concern in Germany that Moscow will completely cut off its gas supplies. Russia has already reduced gas to 20 per cent through its Nord Stream 1 pipeline that runs under the Baltic Sea to Germany.

German energy minister Robert Habeck has been travelling the planet looking for alternative energy supplies, and Chancellor Olaf Scholz will be vising Canada this month to strengthen energy ties.

The fracking debate is splitting along political lines, with left-leaning parties, including the Greens and the ruling Social Democrats, opposed. Parties representing liberals and conservatives say the move is necessary as shortages are expected to hit Germany this winter and over the next few years. They say the country should allow testing and exploration to see if fracking is viable.

“The significant expansion of domestic natural-gas production will make us independent and restore our energy sovereignty,” Michael Kruse, energy policy spokesman of the libertarian Free Democratic Party (FDP) told The Globe and Mail. “It makes more ecological sense to extract this urgently needed gas here on land in safe environments and thus reduce overseas transports,” Mr. Kruse said.

Elsewhere in Europe, fracking is also up for reconsideration. In Britain, there have been calls to lift a moratorium. In the Netherlands, there is a debate over extending fracking production in Europe’s biggest gas field, which is scheduled to end this year.

Germany is also considering extending the lifespan of nuclear plants. The European Parliament recently declared nuclear and natural gas as green energy sources under its climate plan.

Germany has extensive gas reserves, but they are not under development because of the fear of earthquakes and pollution from fracking, which injects high-pressure fluids deep underground to fracture rocks and release shale gas.

Fracking of shale gas has been banned In Germany since 2017; only four test borings for scientific purposes are allowed. But these test drillings haven’t been carried out so far.

“Test drilling in shale-gas fields has not been considered by the extraction companies because of existing political opposition,” said the German Federal Association of Natural Gas, Petroleum and Geoenergy (BVEG).

Some German states, which would have to agree to such test boring, have rejected the idea. The Lower Saxony state, which has the country’s largest shale-gas reserves, is instead pushing for new liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, some of which is currently under construction on the north coast. The LNG terminals could then import fracking gas from the U.S. or natural gas from Canada.

According to a report by the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, the reserves of shale gas in Germany are at more than two trillion cubic metres. Extraction would only be possible through fracking. However, it is unclear whether this volume can be extracted in its entirety.

This amount corresponds to 20 times the annual gas consumption in Germany, which is 100 billion cubic metres, according to BVEG.

The potential production of shale gas would be up to 10 billion cubic metres per year. That could cover 10 per cent of German gas needs and could limit additional LNG imports, said Ludwig Moehring, BVEG’s chief executive. Reducing dependence on LNG imports would in turn put pressure on wholesale prices.

The German government’s expert commission on fracking concluded last year that the technology should be manageable and estimates the environmental risks of shale-gas extraction to be relatively low.

Technological methods for development have advanced in recent years, the commission’s report says. Drillings are closely monitored by sensors, and development prospects are now accurately predicted.

Even if the fracking ban were lifted, German fracked gas would still not be available for at least two winters.

Mr. Moehring pointed out that the approval procedures probably would need a “lead time of several years.” Also, the knowledge about the technology must be restored, he said, because German exploration companies had already abandoned fracking years ago.

Companies operating in Germany, such as Exxon Mobil, would have to draw on the expertise of their U.S. parent companies. The technology has been tried and tested many times around the world.

Fracked gas from the U.S. arrives already on the European market and reaches Germany via ports such as Rotterdam in the Netherlands.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-germany-debates-lifting-fracking-ban-as-it-confronts-energy-supply/?mc_cid=1d2f7ff2d1&mc_eid=cc88839e92

********************************************************

Ex-Cabinet minister Lord Frost says there is no evidence world is facing ‘a climate emergency’ and Britain should end focus on ‘medieval’ wind power and go all in for nuclear and fracking

Ex-Cabinet minister Lord Frost has insisted there is no climate 'emergency' and urged the next prime minister to move away from 'medieval technology' such as wind power.

The former Brexit negotiator, who is backing Liz Truss for the Tory leadership, hit out at a 'totally unrealistic approach to climate and energy policy' over the past two decades.

He demanded Britain change tack from 'managing demand' for energy and instead put greater emphasis on fracking and nuclear power, as well as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Calling for a 'pragmatic' response to climate change - which the Conservative peer said was just 'one of the many' problems facing the UK - Lord Frost blasted an approach that asked the public to 'up-end the whole way our societies work'.

Lord Frost's support for Ms Truss during the Tory leadership contest has prompted speculation he could return to the Cabinet - or become the new PM's chief of staff - should the Foreign Secretary win the contest to replace Boris Johnson.

He was Mr Johnson's chief Brexit negotiator before being given a Cabinet role in March last year. But Lord Frost quit the Government last December with a swipe at the 'direction of travel' of Mr Johnson's administration on Covid restrictions, net-zero ambitions and tax rises.

During the Tory leadership contest, both Ms Truss and her challenger Rishi Sunak have said they would support fracking in Britain if local communities supported it.

This has left open the possibility of a change of direction in UK energy policy under a new PM, with Mr Johnson having used his premiership to call for Britain to become the 'Saudi Arabia of wind power'.

Mr Johnson also banned fracking in England within months of taking office, although he has paved the way for a reconsideration of the moratorium on shale gas extraction amid the current energy crisis.

The outgoing PM also pledged to build a nuclear power plant a year following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has forced Western countries to end their reliance on oil and gas from Moscow.

In a new essay for the Policy Exchange thinktank, Lord Frost outlined how a new PM could alter the Government's approach as he hit out at the 'insidious effects of 20 years of a totally unrealistic approach to climate and energy policy'.

'The current evidence does not support the assertion that we are in a climate “emergency”,' the Tory peer wrote, as he delivered a fresh swipe at Mr Johnson's climate policies.

'Rather, the effects of climate change are a problem, one of the many we face, and should be tackled in that pragmatic way rather than by asking us to up-end the whole way our societies work.

'Western society, and indeed world civilisation, depends on copious supplies of energy.

'Yet the prevailing mood is one in which individuals are asked to restrict their use of energy and in which unsatisfactory renewables technology is touted as the best solution to our problems.

'Instead of focusing on technological solutions that enable us to master our environment and get more energy in a more carbon-efficient way — nuclear, CCS, fracking, one day fusion – we have focused on managing demand so we can use medieval technology like wind power.'

Lord Frost despaired at how Britons are told by climate activists to 'stop travelling, live local, eat less, stop eating meat, turn our lights out, and generally to stop being a burden'.

'As most of us are generally reluctant to do this as individuals, the state has had to step in, with smart meters, heat pumps, LTZs (limited traffic zones), unsatisfactory electric cars, tailored taxation measures, and “nudges”,' he added.

'We have all gradually got used to this, and indeed internalised it, so that it seems normal to be lectured about the moral aspects of virtually every choice in our everyday lives.'

The peer said this had led to a 'further loss of trust in free market economics' but argued there was 'overwhelming evidence that socialist systems have worse environmental outcomes'.

Ben Goldsmith, the chair of the Conservative Environment Network, hit back at Lord Frost's claims.

'Electricity generated from the wind is four times cheaper than electricity generated from gas,' he said. 'I wonder if David Frost has looked at these figures. This article looks about two decades out of date. 'Being four times more expensive than wind, expensive gas should be used to generate power only as a back-up when needed.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11094685/Lord-Frost-says-theres-no-climate-emergency-Britain-end-focus-medieval-wind-power.html?mc_cid=1d2f7ff2d1&mc_eid=cc88839e92

****************************************************

‘Outrageous’: EPA Agents Are Flying Helicopters Over Texas Oil Fields To Crack Down On Methane Emissions From Drilling

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Region 6 department is conducting helicopter flyovers over the Permian Basin to identify “super-emitters” of methane gas among oil and gas operations, according to an Aug. 1 news release.

The flyovers will use infrared cameras to inspect hundreds of oil and gas activities in the Permian Basin region of West Texas and southeast New Mexico until Aug. 15, according to the press release. The agency hopes to use aerial surveillance to identify large emitters of methane and excessive volatile organic compound (VOC), emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids which may cause adverse health effects, as well as address any noncompliance indicated by the flyovers through EPA administrative enforcement actions and referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

“It’s just a way to intimidate the oil and gas industry,” Steve Milloy, member of former President Donald Trump’s EPA transition team, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The EPA’s conduct is outrageous.”

A technician on board the helicopter will record the time, GPS location and other details regarding the source of emissions after detecting hydrocarbon emissions. The federal agency will use this data to locate the source of the emissions and then question facility managers about the violations.

The EPA can impose severe fines on offenders and continue to keep an eye on them to make sure they’re taking the necessary steps to address excessive emissions.

“Biden’s EPA is doing everything to make gas prices higher,” Milloy said.

The area creates large amounts of methane and VOC emissions that are contributing to climate change and poor air quality, according to the press release. VOCs can cause irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, nausea, migraines, as well as damage to the liver, kidneys and central nervous system, according to the EPA.

“There’s no place in the United States where air quality threatens anybody’s health, even the worst air quality may technically violate EPA standards, but none of that is a health risk,” Milloy stated.

“The flyovers are vital to identifying which facilities are responsible for the bulk of these emissions and therefore where reductions are most urgently needed,” said Region 6 administrator Dr. Earthea Nance in a press release.

The EPA proposed new regulations on the oil and gas industry’s methane emissions in November 2021. The agency is mulling whether to declare areas of West Texas and eastern New Mexico in violation of federal limits on ozone pollution.

Helicopter Surveillance of the Permian Basin, which accounts for roughly 40% of the nation’s oil supply, began in 2019.

https://dailycaller.com/2022/08/08/epa-regulators-texas-helicopters-search-methane/

**********************************************

The reef strikes back

Figures released last week show record coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef. It is hardly a surprise that its demise has been greatly exaggerated.

When Greens leader Adam Bandt recently declared that ‘the Great Barrier Reef will die,’ one could confidently predict that the opposite was true. When US president Barack Obama said in 2015 that ‘the incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened,’ it was as likely to be correct as his modest prediction that his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate was, ‘the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal’. When Tim Flannery said, ‘we’re heading for a future where the Great Barrier Reef is a coral graveyard,’ who could forget his advice in 2007 that because Australia’s soil is warmer and its plants are under more stress, ‘even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems’. If only.

The only person to be vindicated by the news of the reef’s rude good health is Peter Ridd, who was head of James Cook University’s physics department and Marine Geophysical Laboratory but was pilloried by climate alarmists and hounded from his job for criticising his colleagues’ alarmism.

Now, the University of Delaware has reported that one of its star scientists is guilty of research misconduct and it has accepted an investigative panel’s conclusion that she committed ‘fabrication and falsification’ in work on fish behaviour and coral reefs. The university is seeking the retraction of three papers including a study about coral reef recovery. And where does the star scientist with the fishy behaviour hail from? That’s right, James Cook University. A group of whistle-blowers say its research culture deserves more scrutiny. The investigative panel found their accounts were convincing and singled out a young scholar out for praise, noting that it is very difficult to challenge an advisor on ethical grounds and took great bravery to come forward. Sadly, few academics had the courage to speak up to defend Ridd.

The reef’s coral rebound comes even though Adani has finally started its operations and Australia is shipping more coal and gas through the reef than ever. No doubt, the good news won’t persuade Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to reverse her decision to put a stop to a central Queensland coal project, which she blocked because it was, ‘likely to have unacceptable impacts’ on the reef.

Unfortunately, there will be no showdown over the okay coral, as Simon Collins put it in his brilliant cartoon in these pages this week. Labor will simply expect the nation to forgo $8 billion in annual export revenue and up to 500 jobs. It demonstrates that Ridd is far from the only person who is losing out because of absurd climate catastrophism. The Reef is thriving. If only we could say the same for the economy, or for our universities and their commitment to academic freedom.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/showdown-at-okay-coral/

**********************************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 10:40 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, August 10, 2022

CNN: Billionaires are funding a massive treasure hunt in Greenland as ice vanishes

Wow! They've got helicopters and transmitters! I'm blown away. And billionaires are doing it so it must be big. CNN can sure pick the big stories

Looking past the hype, however, we note that it's just a startup doing the exploring and that what is concerned is just one small patch of Greenland

Amusingly, there is no claim that the melting ice (if it is melting) is due to global warming. That is wise. There is extensive vulcanism in Greenland and a warmer patch could well be due to that

Nuussuaq, Greenland (CNN)Some of the world's richest men are funding a massive treasure hunt, complete with helicopters and transmitters, on the west coast of Greenland.

The climate crisis is melting Greenland down at an unprecedented rate, which -- in a twist of irony -- is creating an opportunity for investors and mining companies who are searching for a trove of critical minerals capable of powering the green energy transition.

A band of billionaires, including Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates, among others, is betting that below the surface of the hills and valleys on Greenland's Disko Island and Nuussuaq Peninsula there are enough critical minerals to power hundreds of millions of electric vehicles.

"We are looking for a deposit that will be the first- or second-largest most significant nickel and cobalt deposit in the world," Kurt House, CEO of Kobold Metals, told CNN.

The Arctic's disappearing ice -- on land and in the ocean -- highlights a unique dichotomy: Greenland is ground zero for the impacts of climate change, but it could also become ground zero for sourcing the metals needed to power the solution to the crisis.

The billionaire club is financially backing Kobold Metals, a mineral exploration company and California-based startup, the company's representatives told CNN.

Bezos, Bloomberg and Gates did not respond to CNN's requests for comment on this story. Kobold is partnered with Bluejay Mining to find the rare and precious metals in Greenland that are necessary to build electric vehicles and massive batteries to store renewable energy.

Thirty geologists, geophysicists, cooks, pilots and mechanics are camped at the site where Kobold and Blujay are searching for the buried treasure. CNN is the first media outlet with video of the activity happening there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/08/world/greenland-melting-mineral-mining-climate/index.html

***************************************************

Electric Cars Too Costly for Many, Even With Aid in Climate Bill

Policymakers in Washington are promoting electric vehicles as a solution to climate change. But an uncomfortable truth remains: Battery-powered cars are much too expensive for a vast majority of Americans.

Congress has begun trying to address that problem. The climate and energy package passed on Sunday by the Senate, the Inflation Reduction Act, would give buyers of used electric cars a tax credit.

But automakers have complained that the credit would apply to only a narrow slice of vehicles, at least initially, largely because of domestic sourcing requirements. And experts say broader steps are needed to make electric cars more affordable and to get enough of them on the road to put a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions.

High prices are caused by shortages of batteries, of raw materials like lithium and of components like semiconductors. Strong demand for electric vehicles from affluent buyers means that carmakers have little incentive to sell cheaper models. For low- and middle-income people who don’t have their own garages or driveways, another obstacle is the lack of enough public facilities to recharge.

The bottlenecks will take years to unclog. Carmakers and suppliers of batteries and chips must build and equip new factories. Commodity suppliers have to open new mines and build refineries. Charging companies are struggling to install stations fast enough. In the meantime, electric vehicles remain largely the province of the rich.

To some extent, the carmakers are following their usual game plan. They have always introduced new technology at a luxury price. With time, the features and gadgets make their way into cheaper cars.

But emission-free technology has an urgency that voice navigation or massaging seats did not. Transportation accounts for 27 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Battery-powered cars produce far less carbon dioxide than vehicles that run on gasoline or diesel. That’s true even accounting for the emissions from generating electricity and from manufacturing batteries, according to numerous studies.

Only a few years ago analysts were predicting that electric vehicles would soon be as cheap to buy as gasoline cars. Given the savings on fuel and maintenance, going electric would be a no-brainer.

Instead, soaring prices of commodities like lithium, an essential ingredient in batteries, helped raise the average sticker price of an electric vehicle 14 percent last year to $66,000, $20,000 more than the average for all new cars, according to Kelley Blue Book.

Demand for electric vehicles is so strong that models like the Ford Mach-E are effectively sold out, and there are long waits for others. Tesla’s website informs buyers that they can’t expect delivery of a Model Y, with a purchase price of $66,000, until sometime between January and April.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/business/energy-environment/electric-vehicles-climate-bill.html

*******************************************************

Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act includes another lavish EV subsidy for the rich and famous

Of all the ridiculous provisions in the Democrats’ absurdly named Inflation Reduction Act, perhaps the most amazing is the lavish subsidy it provides for the rich and famous. The bill expands upon already deep federal subsidies for Americans who purchase electric vehicles.

There are myriad reasons why this is a bad idea. But with Arizona Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema finally falling in line with the rest of her far left party, this looks to be a done deal. And a very bad one for the average American.

First of all, as many have pointed out, the electricity that runs these futuristic vehicles doesn’t just flow freely from the sky, as envisioned by Nicola Tesla whose name is now synonymous with electric vehicles. Rather these supposedly green status symbols on our roads are powered by the grid. And what powers the grid? In many cases the very fossil fuels meant to be phased out.

Adding to this is the fact that a mandate in the bill requires that the rare minerals needed for the batteries may not come from Russia or China. The only problem is that American auto manufacturers say that without those sources, they simply can’t meet demand. So the already months long waiting lists for many EV’s may only get worse.

It also isn’t clear that this measure will actually lower prices, in fact, manufacturers may simply use the subsidy to create nicer products at the same bottom line cost for their mostly well off consumers.

For the average American an EV is a luxury item, even with Uncle Sam kicking in $7,500 dollars if all requirements are met, it’s a reach these days. It's like giving everyone a thousand dollar gift card to the Rolex store, great, but where do we get the other 9 grand?

But perhaps the biggest flaw of the bill and the one that will stick in the craw of middle class Americans most pointedly is that average price of a new EV is over $54,000, with many much more expensive. Even used EVs, which get a smaller subsidy in the legislation, don’t come cheap.

Dems using gas crisis to push electric cars: ExpertVideo
For the average American this a luxury item, even with Uncle Sam kicking in $7,500 dollars if all requirements are met, it’s a reach these days. It's like giving everyone a thousand dollar gift card to the Rolex store, great, but where do we get the other 9 grand?

There are also regional disparities to consider, California for example has over 550,000 electric cars, which dwarves Texas which has a mere 130,000 and New York with a paltry 62,000. This makes the Golden State a much easier place to drive electric, in part because California Democrats intentionally increased gas prices to create an incentive which resulted in an enormous amount of charging stations, and a culture surrounding the vehicles.

They call this policy a win, but with Californians fleeing the state for less progressive and expensive confines, is this really a path the entire country should be going down? And more broadly, is this even the best way to encourage the growth of the electric vehicle industry?

In the last decade, owing to free market competition with gas guzzlers, EVs have become more competitive, the best way to encourage that is to allow that fair competition to continue, not for the federal government to put its thumb on the scale.

This is not the first time that Democrats under President Joe Biden have sought to give working class cash over to their economic betters. Their desire to forgive student loans for the college educated is another such inverse wealth transfer, and they wonder why they are bleeding blue collar voters like a sacrificial goat.

The bottom line is that top-down attempts to manipulate the American economy so as to achieve environmental or social goals are always a failure. Americans will broadly adopt EVs when they reach a point of equality or superiority in the marketplace.

The actions of people like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to inflict pain at the pump to prime this change is hurting people. And now with this subsidy for the wealthy, the Democrats, once again, are aiming to make the problem worse.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/democrats-inflation-reduction-act-lavish-ev-subsidy-rich-famous

*****************************************************

Tata Steel warns of no choice but to turn to Russian coking coal if Australian supply dwindles

One of the world’s biggest steelmakers will tell the Queensland government a failure to develop new coking coal supplies will inevitably lead Indian producers to buy cheaper supplies from Russia despite sanctions on Moscow.

Tata Steel, which has vowed to stop trading with Russia, will use a meeting with the Palaszczuk government to say the state could double its coking coal exports to India over the next decade to meet surging demand for steel.

However, a failure to bring on new volumes of coal will inevitably result in other Indian steelmakers opting to buy cheaper Russian volumes, meaning Australia misses out on an extra $4bn in annual export revenues from one of its largest trading partners.

“The alternative to Australian coal is Russian coal. I know currently Russia is geopolitically not the best place to buy coal from, but going forward that is an option that Indian companies have,” Tata Steel chief executive TV Narendran told The Australian.

“Tomorrow I have meetings with the Queensland government to look at what we can do together with the mining industry in Australia and the steel industry in India to build a deeper relationship and to increase trade. It‘s about how does the government and industry work together to expand,” said Mr Narendran.

“Metallurgical coal is going to be operating for quite some time to come, particularly in India. I think … the conversation with the government is more about how can we plan better for growth.”

The meeting comes at a sensitive time for the Queensland government, after being slammed by producers for introducing a major windfall royalty tax, prompting warnings that investment in the coal sector could be slashed.

Approvals for new coal mines have also emerged as test for both state and federal governments as pressure grows to limit fossil fuel expansions in Australia.

India has controversially maintained economic relations with Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine in February and increased its imports of coal from Russia in July due to the cut-price supplies on offer during the war.

Tata Steel relied on Queensland for 60 per cent of its coking coal needs, representing a $4.3bn trade between the two countries, and said there was a huge opportunity for the state’s miners if they were able to boost supplies.

“Indian steel consumption or production is going to double in the next 10 years, which means there’s an opportunity for Australia to double its exports of coking coal shipments to India over the next 10 years,” Mr Narendran told The Australian.

“So there‘s a great opportunity for the metallurgical coal industry in Australia to invest and grow in free markets like India.”

The Tata boss, visiting Brisbane for the first time since before the Covid-19 pandemic, said India’s trade with Russia initially started after wild weather in 2019 cut Australia’s exports of the steelmaking material.

“Last time, it was more about how can we have more reliability in terms of supply and what can we tap into to help that context because at that specific point we have variables – that if the supplier is not reliable and India is so dependent on Australian coal – that India will be forced to look at alternate options,” he said.

“Honestly at that time, there was an active movement in India both from the government and industry to look at Russian coal. And in fact that‘s how the Russian coal trade started three of four years back, because supplies from Australia were a bit erratic. And the Russians are offering good quality PCI coal from Vladivostok in the eastern side of Russia. It was easier to get coals from them. So that was the genesis of the Russia idea.”

Russia produces about 75 million tonnes of metallurgical coal a year, according to recent Macquarie figures, and about 360 million tonnes of thermal coal. About 40 per cent of its coking coal is sent into export markets, along with just under half of its thermal coal production.

Its decision to invade Ukraine has again redrawn trade routes and further boosted soaring prices and competition for supplies, including among some of Australia’s oldest customers in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/steel-major-warns-of-no-choice-but-to-turn-to-russian-coking-coal-if-queensland-supply-dwindles/news-story/2a1e755b266fb6ed998f76ed253541f1

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 3:45 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 09, 2022

Germany To Reconnect First Coal Power Plant To Energy Grid

Germany drank the green Kool-Aid as they shut down traditional sources of energy, while fantasizing that windmills and solar panels could sustain their society. Now faced with massive energy shortages and the prospects of a very cold winter coming up, they are reconnecting a coal-fired power plant to the energy grid. The ‘greens’ are up in arms and would apparently rather freeze to death.

While the economic powerhouse of Europe — so called — scrambles to secure energy sources before the winter months, the previously shuttered Mehrum coal power plant in Lower Saxony will become the first to once again be connected to Germany’s grid.

On Monday, the manager of the Czech-owned EGH operating company, Kathrin Voelkner said: “We have declared the return to the electricity market. We assume that we will return to the grid in the short term,” according to the Frankfurter Neue Presse newspaper.

The move was preceded by the federal government implementing an emergency ordinance to allow mothballed oil and coal-powered plants to open back up until April of next year, as the country faces a shortfall in its energy amid the conflict in Ukraine.

Economy Minister Robert Habeck, a leading member of the German Greens, has described the decision to turn back on coal plants as “bitter” but a necessary evil.

While the government has allowed for the return to coal power, the socialist SPD-led traffic light coalition government has so far refused to abandon its decision to shut its remaining nuclear power plants by the end of the year, a move that followed years of anti-nuclear policies from former Chancellor Angela Merkel following the Fukushima meltdown in Japan.

The co-leader of The Greens, Ricarda Lang has said that a return to nuclear power “will not happen, on our watch at least.”

Lang said that there was a “lack of seriousness” in the debate surrounding nuclear, which she described as a “highly risky technology,” despite nuclear power being one of the safest major energy sources in the world.

“But we need answers that actually suit the problem,” the Green politician continued. “We have a warmth problem, not an electricity problem,” she claimed, despite gas still being used for energy production.

Others have disagreed with the anti-nuclear stance of the government, including Saxony Prime Minister Michael Kretschmerhas, who declared last week that the green agenda has failed.

“The energy transition with gas as the base load has failed,” he said while calling for the remaining nuclear power stations to remain open during the crisis.

Despite longstanding warnings from figures such as former President Donald Trump, the country has remained heavily reliant on Russia for gas. While Russia has claimed that the current shortfalls in gas shipments have come as a result of technical issues with the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, others have suggested that it is a retaliatory strike in response to sanctions levied against Moscow over the war in Ukraine.

Presently, the biggest concern facing Germany is potential blackouts during the winter, which could lead to dangerous situations, particularly for elderly people, something the so-called ‘greens’ seem unconcerned about.

However, some cities have already begun putting rationing measures in place, including Hanover, which became the first major European city this week to place limits on hot water use in public buildings.

https://principia-scientific.com/germany-to-reconnect-first-coal-power-plant-to-energy-grid/

***********************************************************

Va. Ratepayers to Front Costs for $9.8B Offshore Wind Farm

The State Corporation Commission (SCC), which regulates public utilities, recently approved a new Dominion Energy-backed $9.8 billion offshore wind farm, the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind Project (CVOW), 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach.

Unsurprisingly, Virginia ratepayers will pay more to “transition” away from fossil fuels as stipulated by the 2020 Virginia Clean Economy Act—Virginia’s “Green New Deal” signed into law by former Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA). Governor Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) has pledged to repeal the VCEA but can’t unless Republicans retake the State Senate next year.

The project’s supporters claim the 176 planned wind turbines will each produce “14.7 megawatts” to power upwards of 660,000 homes.

But there are major problems befalling the project.

Most notably, the CVOW contains a “revenue requirement of $78.702 million for the rate year of September 1, 2022, to August 31, 2023, to be recovered through a new rate adjustment clause (Rider OSW).” The Rider OSW, the SCC noted, will have a base monthly bill increase of $4.72 but a peak monthly bill increase of $14.22.

Isn’t clean energy like wind supposed to help lower costs? It doesn’t here. Talk about unreliability.

This year alone, many Virginians will pay a solar tariff amounting to $20 in additional electricity costs. This is compounded by Dominion Energy’s request to charge its five million Virginia customers seven percent more across three years to reportedly combat inflation. Another estimate, however, points to the electric utility potentially raising fees by 12 to 20%.

Given this, the CVOW isn’t a cost-savings measure.

As electricity prices continue to soar, how would this expensive project be a remedy to include in the Commonwealth’s power grid? It isn’t.

Virginia already has two offshore wind turbines that cost $300 million. Has wind’s inclusion been reflected in the power grid? Has it led to our energy bills decreasing? Hardly.

Per the Energy Information Administration (EIA), Virginia’s was predominantly powered by natural gas (61%) followed by nuclear (29%), biomass (6%) and coal (4%). No mention or listing of solar and wind.

Obviously, natural gas and nuclear are still king in Virginia. Why discourage their use in favor of unreliable solar and wind?

The CVOW’s costs and limited electricity generation aren't the only red flags. The project’s potential negative environmental impact has yet to be seriously discussed and considered.

Here’s an inconvenient truth: offshore wind farms (OWFs) greatly interfere with fish migration patterns.

Oceanography, a magazine of the Oceanography Society, noted OWFs may act as artificial reefs but boast many ecological consequences like turning some OWFs into “no-go areas”— thereby making them “no-take zones.” The magazine also notes there could be adverse effects to “sensory environment related to sound, as well as electromagnetic fields and physical alterations of current and wind wakes, may have as yet unknown impacts on fisheries resources.”

The Energy Department even conceded wind turbines have adverse environmental impacts, writing, “As with all energy supply options, wind energy can have adverse environmental impacts, including the potential to reduce, fragment, or degrade habitat for wildlife, fish, and plants. Furthermore, spinning turbine blades can pose a threat to flying wildlife like birds and bats.”

Governor Youngkin broadly supports wind energy, but didn’t join an 11-state partnership with the Biden administration aimed at shoring up offshore wind development.

In June, five of Youngkin’s cabinet members wrote a letter to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) warning future leasing areas not “impact or restrict maritime commerce or commercial navigation within the federal channels into the Chesapeake Bay, Hampton Roads, The Port of Virginia's facilities, Chesapeake Bay anchorages, the Atlantic Ocean shipping lanes and its port approaches as well as traditional and projected high-density maritime traffic routes.”

Where are the Virginia environmental groups opposing the project on conservation grounds? Sadly, they’re all-in for it.

Lest Virginians forget: The CVOW is owned and operated by Dominion Energy—the same utility company whose CEO pumped money into a shadowy political action committee (PAC) that tried to depress turnout ahead of the 2021 Virginia gubernatorial election.

Governor Youngkin shouldn’t forget Dominion’s meddling in his race. But since the project is tied to the VCEA, much can’t be done—for now. Unless Virginians start voicing their concerns.

The SCC couldn’t reject the project, according to the Richmond Times-Dispatch, which reported, “The commission was constrained by the General Assembly from rejecting the project, which the legislature declared two years ago to be in the public interest. But the constitutionally independent regulatory body ordered Dominion to abide by a performance guarantee to protect consumers from additional costs if the farm of 176 wind turbines doesn’t perform as the company predicts.”

Nevertheless, these consumer protections aren’t enough to assuage concerns.

Virginia shouldn’t gamble on the CVOW, no matter how economically attractive it sounds. Let’s hope the SCC eventually pulls the plug on the project.

https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2022/08/08/va-ratepayers-to-front-costs-for-98b-offshore-wind-farm-n2611392

*****************************************************

The Big Green Lie Almost Everyone Claims to Believe

Almost every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, pays homage to the Big Green Lie. So do all the past and remaining Conservative candidates vying to be prime minister of the UK and every candidate currently vying for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. So does virtually all of the mainstream press.

The Big Green Lie—that carbon dioxide is a pollutant—is so pervasive that even those considered skeptics—including right-wing NGOs and pundits—generally adhere to the orthodoxy, differing not in their stated belief that CO2 is a pollutant but only in how calamitous a pollutant it is.

Because everyone now participates in the “CO2 emissions are bad” lie, the debate over climate policy hasn’t been over whether a CO2 problem exists but over how urgently CO2 needs to be addressed, and how it should be addressed. Do we have eight years left before Armageddon becomes inevitable or decades? Do we get off fossil fuels by building nuclear plants or wind turbines? Should we change our lifestyles to need less of everything? Or should we mitigate this evil—the view of those deemed climate minimalists—by shielding our continents from a rising of the oceans by enclosing them behind sea walls?

With almost everyone across the political spectrum publicly agreeing that curbing CO2 is a good thing, the debate has been between those who want to do good quickly by reaching net-zero in 2040 and sticks in the mud who want to slow down the doing of a good thing. With discourse careening down rabbit holes, almost everyone gets lost pursuing solutions to Alice-in-Wonderland delusions—and wasting trillions of dollars in the process.

Until the 2000s, when climate change was still called global warming and the mainstream media still noticed that none of the myriad predictions of a climate catastrophe were being borne out—the polar caps weren’t melting, Manhattan wasn’t about to be submerged, malaria wasn’t infecting the Northern Hemisphere—many exposed man-made climate change as a hoax. The leaked Climategate emails revealed how scientists had conspired to “hide the decline” in temperatures that didn’t conform to their models.

The claim that 97 percent of scientists supported the global warming theory was exposed as a fraud, as was the claim that the 4,000 scientists associated with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) endorsed its report—those 4,000 hadn’t endorsed it, and most hadn’t even read it but had merely reviewed parts of the report and often disagreed with what they read.

The claim that the “science was settled” on climate change never withstood scrutiny. Scientists around the world signed a series of petitions to dispute that claim. The 2008 Oregon Petition, spearheaded by a former president of the National Academy of Science and championed by Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein’s successor at Princeton and one of the world’s most preeminent scientists, was signed by more than 31,000 scientists and experts who agreed that “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.… Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

What is settled is the abject failure of the three-decade-long attempt by the bureaucracies of the 195 countries of the IPCC to convince anyone other than themselves, a credulous media, and a relatively few gullible people that climate change represents an existential threat. Poll after poll over the decades shows the public gives climate change short shrift when asked to rank its importance.

A Gallup poll released last week that asked Americans, “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” found that climate change didn’t meet its criteria of the many issues worth listing. As Gallup noted: “Many parts of the nation have suffered record heat in recent weeks, and other regions have received record flooding. But a low 3% of Americans mention the weather, the environment or climate change as the nation’s top problem.”

So, too, last month, where “just 1 percent of voters in a recent New York Times/Siena College poll named climate change as the most important issue facing the country … [and] even among voters under 30, the group thought to be most energized by the issue, that figure was 3 percent.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-big-green-lie-almost-everyone-claims-to-believe_4639112.html

*********************************************

19 GOP Attorneys General threaten $10 trillion hedge fund BlackRock with antitrust action over ESG stranglehold on U.S. energy production

By Robert Romano

A group of 19 Republican Attorneys General led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson have threatened the $10 trillion hedge fund BlackRock with antitrust legal action in an Aug. 4 letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink accusing the company of “intentionally restrain[ing] and harm[ing] the competitiveness of the energy markets” with its market dominance of retirement investments.

Brnovich and Peterson added, “coordinated conduct with other financial institutions to impose net-zero [carbon emissions by 2050] … raises antitrust concerns. Group boycotts, restraining trade, or concerted refusals to deal, ‘clearly run afoul of’ Section 1 of the Sherman Act [according to the Supreme Court]. Section 1 prohibits ‘[e]very … combination … , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.’ Regarding the definition of a ‘combination,’ the Supreme Court has held that this language prohibits ‘concerted action.’”

Those are fighting words. Here, Brnovich, Peterson and the other GOP Attorneys General lay out a case that BlackRock’s push for net zero carbon emissions, through its coordinated efforts with investment banks via Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) funds to restrict the flow of capital to carbon-based energies like oil and coal, are engaged in a type of anticompetitive collusion prohibited by federal antitrust laws.

ESG investing has increased dramatically in the past two decades via private retirement funds regulated under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) thanks to a regulation by the Obama Labor Department in 2015 allowing ESG investments into tax-exempt retirement savings accounts, and also by individually directed tax-free retirement accounts. A 2020 regulation by the Trump administration to water that down was promptly overturned by the Biden Administration.

In addition, the $762 billion federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for federal employee retirees began investing in ESG funds in 2022, following state government employee retirement funds in California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland and Oregon.

As a result, ESG is said to be worth $41 trillion this year globally, and $50 trillion by 2025, about one-third of all assets under management, according to Bloomberg.

U.S. corporations appear to be all in on BlackRock’s investing scam, with a recent KPMG survey finding 82 percent of U.S. corporations are touting ESG sustainability goals in their corporate filings. I’d add, even though doing so by no means guarantees inclusion in hedge funds’ ESG funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, etc.

In other words, ESG investing is so successful in shifting companies to the stakeholder capitalism model that companies are adopting ESG goals of their own accord — in mere hopes of getting some that investment money by virtue signaling — without necessarily even boosting their companies’ capitalization. It’s like trying to boost your odds of winning the lottery by promoting the lottery. It doesn’t quite work that way.

In the meantime, Brnovich and Peterson are absolutely correct that BlackRock’s ESG-driven focus on net zero carbon is absolutely strangling U.S. energy production through pressure on corporate firms.

According to EIA, U.S. oil production will reach 12 million barrels per day in 2022 and 12.6 million barrels per day in 2023, not quite a return to pre-Covid production levels that peaked at 12.9 million barrels per day in Nov. 2019. Why? Because America’s largest energy companies appear to be purposely unprepared to expand production even in the middle of a global energy shortage. The proper investments were never made.

ExxonMobil, the largest producer in the U.S., announced that it would produce about 3.7 million barrels of oil a day — about 18 percent of all U.S. consumption — from its facilities throughout the world, a level which would remain relatively unchanged through 2025. This year, the estimate for 2022 was up slightly to 3.8 million barrels a day, only expected to rise to 4.2 million barrels a day by 2027.

Chevron, the second largest U.S.-based producer, it currently produces about 3 million barrels a day, expected to rise by just 500,000 barrels per day by 2025 to 3.5 million barrels per day.

In the meantime, carbon-based energy companies will pretend to feud with green companies or the Biden administration about “greenwashing” in these companies’ investment brochures, all the while helping BlackRock to achieve its utopian, net zero carbon goals — simply by slowing down production.

BlackRock has placed green activists onto the board of Exxon to make it a “not-oil” company, thanks to ESG. Other hedge funds like Vanguard also make significant ESG investments.

But it has led to catastrophe. Besides making Europe and the West increasingly dependent on energy from adversaries like Russia, inflation is on fire. Thanks to the energy crisis, even major ESG beneficiaries like Tesla CEO Elon Musk are calling for an increase in oil and gas production in a bid to offset Russia, writing on Twitter on March 8: “Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures.” And yet, we’re not increasing production by all that much.

In his annual shareholder letter to investors BlackRock CEO Larry Fink said the war in Ukraine, the supply crisis and the inflation would all lead to even more green energy in the future: “Longer-term, I believe that recent events will actually accelerate the shift toward greener sources of energy in many parts of the world.” Particularly, the inflation of carbon-based energy would make green energy more price competitive: “Higher energy prices will also meaningfully reduce the green premium for clean technologies and enable renewables, EVs and other clean technologies to be much more competitive economically,” Fink said.

In other words, the inflation we’re all experiencing right now is the point.

Indeed, extraordinary times do call for extraordinary measures, as Elon Musk has suggested — and thank goodness Attorneys General Brnovich and Peterson are taking the lead for red states via antitrust action. Ultimately, it is Congress with its power to regulate interstate commerce and the power of the purse to state which types of investments are eligible for tax-free status that could bring ESG and other economically targeted investments to their knees.

The goal for Republicans, whether in the states or in Congress, has to be to boost energy production here and to free our capital system from the grips of those who would use it to weaken America’s position in the world. Whatever it takes, there is too much at stake.

https://dailytorch.com/2022/08/19-gop-attorneys-general-threaten-10-trillion-hedge-fund-blackrock-with-antitrust-action-over-esg-stranglehold-on-u-s-energy-production/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 10:37 PM 0 comments

Sunday, August 07, 2022

Next Prime Minister warned not to wreck UK shale gas opportunity yet again

Net Zero Watch has warned that the next Prime Minister will have to radically break with 12 years of failure by Conservative-led governments to develop the UK’s massive shale gas reserves.

The campaign group welcomed the pledges by Tory leadership contenders Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak to overturn Boris Johnson’s fracking ban if they succeed him, but warned that despite similar pledges by previous ministers, conservative-led governments had completely failed to get any shale gas out of the ground for the last 12 years.

Net Zero Watch has repeatedly called for the UK to accelerate the development of Britain’s massive and potentially game-changing shale gas resources. It warns that unless the entire regulatory process is reformed swiftly and effectively, the extraction of shale gas will most likely be impossible for years to come.

Benny Peiser, the Net Zero Watch director, said:

"While both Tory leadership hopefuls have promised to be pro-fracking, their pledges are just the first mini-hurdle in the campaign to revive UK shale gas development. The next Prime Minister will have to follow up on these promises with radical reforms and policy changes if the government wants to overcome inherent blockages posed by civil servants, green MPs, activists and Putin’s useful idiots."

"Unless the new Prime Minister swiftly reforms the approval process, relaxes seismic restrictions and declares UK shale gas a matter of national security it will be near impossible to develop UK shale gas for years to come."

"The UK’s worst energy and security crisis since World War II demands decisive and radical action by the next Prime Minister. One of the most urgent responses is for the UK to kick-start a shale gas revolution without any further delays.”

Contact: Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Net Zero Watch. e: benny.peiser@netzerowatch.com m: 07553 361717

https://mailchi.mp/626eae1b9809/next-prime-minister-warned-not-to-wreck-uk-shale-gas-opportunity-yet-again-190375?e=cc88839e92

****************************************************

Man Suffers 'Life Changing Injuries' After Electric Car Bursts Into Flames While Driving Down Highway

A man suffered serious injuries near Broughton, North Wales, on Tuesday morning when his electric vehicle spontaneously burst into flames.

According to the Liverpool Echo, the man was driving near the A55, also known as the North Wales Expressway.

His car reportedly caught on fire without warning, and bystanders rushed to the vehicle to pull the man from the flames. Paramedics attended to the victim at the scene.

Police said the man was eventually transported via ambulance to a hospital with “serious, possibly life-changing injuries,” the Echo reported.

The Welsh Ambulance Service said two rapid response vehicles, an emergency ambulance, helicopter and the Emergency Medical Retrieval and Transfer Service responded to the scene.

Authorities closed the road at the sight of the incident around 8:45 a.m. local time, and it remained that way for several hours.

Chief Inspector Alwyn Williams of North Wales Police said fire crews remained at the scene into Tuesday afternoon “due to the car involved being an electric vehicle.”

The incident in North Wales followed another electric car fire that made headlines earlier this week, though the actual incident occurred in June.

According to Electrek, Gonzalo Salazar wrote in an email to them that he purchased a new 2019 Jaguar I-Pace in 2020. He did not have any issues with the vehicle until two years later, but when they did arise, they were significant.

Salazar said he left his car plugged in overnight on June 16, and he took it the next day to run errands. He drove the car for just about 12 miles before returning it to the garage.

After going inside his house, Salazar said he began hearing strange popping noises from the garage. He went outside and saw thick smoke coming from the vehicle.

“My thought immediately was, ‘When there is smoke, there is fire,’ and I need to get the car out of the house garage,” Salazar told Electrek.

He called Jaguar roadside assistance and asked them to transport the vehicle to a safe place, but the situation continued to worsen.

“When I ended the conversation with them there were more pops, but this time it was followed by fire from under the car,” Salazar wrote. “I then called 911 to come help with the situation.”

“But this was not a slow burn, once the fire started there were multiple pops, and the car was just engulfed in flames rapidly.”

Eventually, the majority of the vehicle was completely destroyed by the fire. Photos of the car after the fire was put out showed just a small portion of the front of the car remained intact.

Electrek reported Salazar’s was the fourth known Jaguar I-Pace batter to catch on fire without an apparent cause.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/man-suffers-life-changing-injuries-electric-car-bursts-flames-driving-highway ?

****************************************************

Washington Knows Best What Car You Should Drive: Electric Vehicles. Seriously?

“When politicians are out there saying, ‘Let’s get rid of all cars using gasoline,’ do they understand this?” Toyota President Akio Toyoda asked in 2020, referring to the profound consequences of politicians forcing a transition away from conventional vehicles.

It’s a good question, and a proposal in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act being pushed through Congress suggests the answer is “no.”

President Joe Biden has used a variety of policy vehicles to force a transition from the ubiquitous internal combustion engine to electric vehicles. Among them are executive orders, procurement mandates for the military, and regulations to make it almost impossible to manufacture and sell a conventional car or truck.

The Senate is poised to join in. Heaped on top of tens of billions of dollars in grants, taxpayer-backed loans, and investment tax credits for EV manufacturers, the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act negotiated by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., proposes an extension of EV tax subsidies.

The bill offers up to $7,500 in tax credits for new EV purchases, including bonuses for EVs made by union labor and batteries manufactured or assembled in North America. The legislation also makes the existing EV tax credit even bigger by eliminating caps on sales, adding a new tax credit of $4,000 for used EVs, and extending the credits for the next decade.

While there are some improvements—unlike the existing credit, the credit is not available for Americans earning more than $300,000 jointly or for EVs containing batteries made with critical minerals from “foreign entities of concern”—they don’t address the real problem.

The problem isn’t the size of the credit or even EVs themselves. The real problem is politicians attempting to force a transition to energy sources they prefer, having no inhibitions about the arrogance of such a central planning scheme, the restrictions it imposes on freedom, or the trade-offs, limitations, and collateral damage those policies cause at Americans’ expense.

Trade-offs, Limitations, and Collateral Damage
There’s no perfect vehicle or energy. All involve compromises that individuals, families, and businesses prioritize differently. Yet too many politicians think they know what’s perfect and the right vehicle for everyone else. And as they inappropriately impose their preferences on Americans, they ignore the costs of forcing EVs would impose on the country.

Let’s count some of the ways.

1. The disconnect between reality and political aspirations is wide. A full 90% of Americans’ transportation energy needs are covered by petroleum. EVs make up about 1% of registered vehicles in the U.S., despite years of federal and state subsidies. The International Energy Agency estimates that politicians’ aspirations for EV deployment under the Paris Agreement climate commitments imply a thirtyfold increase in demand for minerals used in EV batteries by 2040. That’s perhaps why the head of EV company Rivian warned that ongoing supply chain problems with “semiconductors are a small appetizer to what we are about to feel on battery cells over the next two decades.”

2. EVs trade fuel dependency for mineral dependency. While conventional cars and trucks rely on global markets for crude oil and refining capacity (both of which the U.S. is a major global supplier of), EVs must rely on global markets for mining and refining of minerals, which account for more than half the cost of an EV battery.

Minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and copper are needed to manufacture batteries and other components in EVs. According to the International Energy Agency, EVs use six times more minerals than a conventional car. The agency estimates that it takes more than 16 years on average to get a mine up and running from the moment of discovery of mineral deposits. Yet the Biden administration has done its level best to block new mining capacity in the United States, particularly in Minnesota and Alaska.

American miners are a small player in global markets for the minerals needed for EVs: Chile is the world’s largest mining country for copper; Indonesia for nickel; Australia for lithium, and—far more troublesome when it comes to human rights abuses and environmental stewardship—China for rare earth minerals and the Democratic Republic of Congo for cobalt.

Refining capacity for these minerals is deeply concentrated in China.

In other words, “concerns about price volatility and security of supply do not disappear in an electrified, renewables-rich energy system.”

3. EVs are being used as a pretext for big government favors to labor unions. While there is certainly no reason why policies addressing EVs have to be special favors for labor unions, the Schumer-Manchin bill would give bonus tax subsidies for EVs made with union labor. This is just good, old-fashioned cronyism. Further, these policies would inflate EV costs and penalize most workers who prefer not to join a union. It could even backfire and lead to fewer electric vehicles being produced and sold in the U.S. Only about 14% of autoworkers are unionized in the U.S. Meanwhile, foreign-owned automakers now employ more U.S. workers than domestic automakers.

4. Policies pushing EVs are corporate welfare and special favors for the wealthy. Of the estimated $7.5 billion in existing EV credits to be claimed between 2018 and 2022, corporations will take about half. Of the other half claimed by individual Americans, 78% will go to people making more than $100,000 per year. One state leads the pack: California is home to 39% of registered electric vehicles—perhaps unsurprising inasmuch as the state is banning the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles starting in 2035 as part of its radical climate agenda.

5. There’s no guarantee that EVs reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Regardless of how one views the issue of global warming, EVs are no surefire solution. EVs have to plug in somewhere, and 60% of the electricity consumed in the U.S. is generated from natural gas and coal. Ironically, even as the need for electricity generation would grow, federal regulators and some states are trying to choke off production and use of natural gas as a power source, just as they’ve been trying to do to coal for years. It’s no wonder grid operators have heightened concerns about reliability.

6. EVs come with trade-offs for owners. EVs bring interesting capabilities to the table, but they also have detractors. Currently, many EVs cost more than their conventional counterparts. Refueling takes time. EV batteries lose an average of 2% of their capacity each year (depending on exposure to temperature extremes, how often an owner charges the battery, and other habits that degrade batteries), and replacement is costly. Some parking garages even prohibit drivers from parking in them due to the risks of batteries potentially catching on fire. And the driving range of EVs decreases and heating becomes a costly choice in cold weather, which is probably why very few EVs are registered in cold-weather states that don’t heavily subsidize them or penalize gasoline cars.

It’s one thing for an individual, family, or company to weigh trade-offs and make the decision to purchase an EV. It’s a totally different matter for politicians or bureaucrats to force the decision on Americans.

Competition made America a great country in which to innovate, run a business, and shop for products that meet the diverse needs of Americans. EVs are one of a variety of options out there competing for Americans’ business and should compete on their merits.

Unless Congress comes to its senses, American taxpayers will be covering the costs of big government EV policies, whether they buy an EV or not.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/08/03/washington-knows-best-what-car-you-should-drive-electric-vehicles-seriously

*********************************************

Is the Electric Revolution Coming to an End? EV Maker Faces Major Problems, Slashes Production in Half

Climate alarmists’ misguided fantasy of an electric vehicle-dominated world has morphed into a nightmare amid historic inflation and crippling supply-chain bottlenecks.

In the latest blow, EV maker Lucid Group slashed its production outlook by 50 percent, citing supply-chain disruptions and “logistical challenges,” The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Other factors contributing to the expected shortfall are increased competition in the EV market and skyrocketing prices of raw materials amid the runaway inflation that has become the hallmark of Joe Biden’s failed presidency.

This is the second time in the past eight months the California automaker has cut its production projections. Lucid now expects to make just 6,000 to 7,000 cars this year.

In February, the electric vehicle company had cut its outlook from 20,000 vehicles to 12,000.

“This quarter has proven to be a very challenging period, and whilst we have experienced supply chain and logistics challenges along with the entire industry, the limitations of our logistics systems have compounded the challenge,” CEO Peter Rawlinson told the Wall Street Journal.

As a result, Lucid will “increase the price of its sole vehicle, the Air sedan, to $87,000, citing rising raw material costs.”

The purported logic of paying $87,000 for a car to “save money on gas” is baffling, and it might hasten the industry’s downfall.

The challenge for EV makers is making a profit, as many of them operate at a loss for years — even with hefty, taxpayer-funded federal subsidies.

For example, Tesla — the biggest and most prominent EV company — recorded its first profitable year in 2021 even though it launched in 2003.

Meanwhile, for the second quarter ended in June, Lucid lost $220 million, slightly better than the $261 million it lost in the year-ago period.

Another California electric-car maker, Fisker Inc., lost $106 million in the second quarter — more than double the $46 million it lost the previous year. The 6-year-old company reported second-quarter revenue of just $10,000 — down from $27,000 a year earlier.

Just last week, still another California EV company, Rivian Automotive, laid off 6 percent of its 14,000 employees, citing record inflation.

“Over the last six months, the world has dramatically changed with inflation reaching record highs, interest rates rapidly rising and commodity prices continuing to climb — all of which have contributed to the global capital markets tightening,” Rivian CEO R.J. Scaringe wrote in a company email announcing the firings.

With all these challenges roiling the industry, it makes no sense for Biden and the Democratic Party to continue to rabidly push electric vehicles as the solution to high gas prices.

If you like electric cars, get one — but they shouldn’t be forced on the American public as part of an insidious, calculated plan to destroy the oil industry in the name of climate alarmism.

Transitioning 332 million Americans from fossil fuels to so-called green energy will be expensive, inconvenient and painful — and it isn’t even guaranteed to combat “climate change.”

As it is, climate change is not a top priority for the vast majority of Americans, but this is what Biden is focusing on because he has had no success in quelling the numerous real crises ravaging the nation.

According to a recent New York Times/Siena College poll, only 1 percent of voters named climate change as the most important issue facing the country, far behind worries about inflation and the economy.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/electric-revolution-coming-end-ev-maker-faces-major-problems-slashes-production-half

***********************************************

Australia: Labor-Greens marriage produces forty new bills!

Viv Forbes

There is an ominous buzz in the new Australian Parliament where Albo and the Greens are planning to pass 40 new bills, quick smart.

Each bill will probably need 100 new regulations and 200 new inspectors, auditors, and enforcers plus many new taxes and fees. They will not deliver ‘Net Zero’ – they are ‘Net Negative’ – but they will divert labour and capital from productive activities to bureaucracies and green energy speculators.

Where are the 40 old bills that Green-Albo will repeal to make room for these 40 wordy additions to Australia’s already overflowing legislative sewer?

We need a new political party dedicated solely to the repeal of costly, destructive, or useless legislation.

Australia has thrived for over 200 years without Green-Albo’s 40 new laws. So they can be safely rejected or repealed and followed out the door by most of the legislation introduced under the baleful gaze of the Green Quad – Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull, and Morrison. A safe policy for the new Repeal Party would be ‘Last in, First Out’.

Not only is it imperative to start the domestic repeal movement, Australia also needs to back out of the international agreements swamp. Top priority here is to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Probably the worst bill in Green-Albo’s legislative avalanche is the Climate Change Bill.

This dreadful piece of legislation gives the government the ability to ‘ratchet up’ green targets without new parliamentary approval, but makes it difficult for future governments to ratchet back these targets when it all goes horribly wrong. This will clutter rural Australia with imported solar panels and windmills, and destroy forests and grasslands with spider-webs of roads and transmission lines. It will make blackouts more likely and destroy any heavy industry we have left.

Filling our cities with electric cars will stress the electricity grid and add greatly to urban fire risks. And in 15 years (or after every cyclone) we will have an enormous problem trying to dispose of the worn-out, non-degradable wind and solar generator debris.

Wind and solar are almost useless without big battery storage. Then there is Turnbull’s Green Elephant, the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro, which is way behind in time and way ahead in costs.

Australia survived booms and busts, two world wars, and the Great Depression only to see the Builder Generations outvoted by the Spoiled Brat generations – the Teal-tinged Baby Boomers, the Millenniums, Blockade Australia, and the Thunbergs.

Not only have Albo and the Green-Teals captured Australia’s Parliament, they also dominate the school rooms, the education departments, and most of the media. Climate activism is encouraged in schools at the expense of maths, science, and engineering. The Builder Generations are depicted in education propaganda not as wise elders but as ‘Cranky Uncles’.

No wonder we are cranky.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/labor-greens-marriage-produces-forty-new-bills/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************




Friday, August 05, 2022

Great Barrier Reef breaks coral cover record again

Greenie prophecies of its demise prove wrong -- as all their prophecies do

London, 4 August -- Official data released today reveals that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is in excellent health, with coral cover reaching record levels for the second consecutive year.

The increase will be surprising to members of the public, who are regularly hit with scare stories about coral bleaching and false tales about a reef in long-term decline.

A new note, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, explains that the data shows clearly how a handful of coral bleaching events that have affected the reef since 2016 have had very limited impact on overall coral cover.

Dr Peter Ridd says:

“In recent years, the media around the world has been reporting coral bleaching events in increasingly apocalyptic terms. This data proves that they are simply scaremongering.”

GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

“This is just the latest example of empirical data making a mockery of the catastrophists. For how much longer do they think they can get away with it?”

Dr Ridd’s paperis titled entitled "The Good News on Coral Reefs"

https://mailchi.mp/9817ba74a104/great-barrier-reef-breaks-coral-cover-record-again-190539?e=cc88839e92

***************************************************

Nederland is showing how not to tackle climate change

For weeks now, Dutch farmers have been protesting against the government’s plans on nitrogen emissions cuts, creating havoc in the country. Angry farmers have been withholding deliveries to grocery shops, dumping manure or tyres on motorways or at politicians’ homes, and blocking traffic. Farmers in other countries in Europe and North America have organised protests in solidarity with Dutch farmers and as a warning to their governments not to go the same way. Europe’s right-wing politicians used the protest movement to forward their own agenda. This may be just the beginning of wider unrest over agriculture.

What is the trigger behind those protests? It started with manure that is produced plentifully by Dutch livestock farms. When mixed with urine, it produces ammonia and nitrous oxide. The first one gets into the air and water, harming wildlife; the second is a potent greenhouse gas. Fertilisers too have nitrogen compounds.

The Dutch government propose cutting 50 per cent of nitrogen emissions by 2030. This plan includes a radical cut in livestock. The government estimates 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock numbers.

Dutch farmers have used the protests to force the government to rethink their measures before the bill becomes a law later this year. This is about their way of living and earning. Those who can afford to continue will have to do so differently. Technology and changing farming habits are part of the solution. Others will be forced to shut.

The protests in response to these plans have attracted widespread domestic support. The Farmer-Citizen Movement, or BBB, an agrarian interest party, is currently in joint second-place in the Dutch polls, reaching a high of 18 per cent in Politico‘s poll of polls earlier in July.

Politically this debate is flaring up not only in the Netherlands. Far-right politicians and conspiracy activists are piggy-backing on those protests. Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen, and even Donald Trump, have framed the protests as climate tyranny against hard-working people. The Polish government is the latest to officially back those protests. They have been lobbying the European Commission to back down on its emissions reduction plans for the agricultural sector. The Dutch protests are helpful in their endeavour.

The Netherlands is one of the most intensely farmed countries in Europe. It is the world’s fourth-largest dairy exporter and second-largest overall food exporter. Per square mile, they have 238 cows compared to 100 in the UK or 80 in Germany. This means more manure to dispose of and thus more emissions. Agriculture accounts for 86 per cent of Dutch nitrous oxide emissions. While many farmers accept that things have to change, they disagree with the way the government imposed its plans. For farmers, their way of life is at stake.

The Dutch protests are a reminder that climate policies cannot simply be imposed without rupture or intense exchanges. But this debate should not be reduced to government targets or farmers’ identities. To achieve climate transition it will be crucial to engage farmers, to cultivate an openness to new forms of farming that helps biodiversity and the climate.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/the-netherlands-is-showing-how-not-to-tackle-climate-change

******************************************************

Billionaire-Funded Eco Group Quietly Acquires Farmland in Rural America for Sinister Plan, Aided by Feds

A billionaire-funded group’s plan to seal off hundreds of thousands of acres of land from agricultural use is drawing condemnation in Montana, with residents of the rural state pointing to the group’s plan as a threat to their way of life.

The American Prairie has obtained over 450,000 acres of land in Montana alone since 2004, with the plan of reserving them for wildlife and a “fully functioning ecosystem,” according to Fox News.

The group’s foreign donors include Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss and deceased German businessman Erivan Haub.

The group has applied for authorization from the Bureau of Land Management for bison grazing on large portions of its Montana land holdings twice since 2017, using laws ordinarily intended to apply for livestock grazing.

Bison are wild animals, rather than livestock, with no role in modern-day commercial food production.

Montanans aren’t enthusiastic about the billionaire-funded group’s plans to seal off farmland from ranching and agricultural use.

The central Montana counties where the group has aggressively expanded its land holdings are heavily dependent on cattle ranching. Much of the lands the group now owns were once used by ranchers in the area.

The American Prairie Foundation plans to release wild bison onto their land holdings, a plan that’s concerning to local cattle ranchers. The ranchers fear the animals will infect their livestock with brucellosis, a disease that affects cattle and elk.

In a statement provided to the Western Journal, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen criticized the Bureau of Land Management for approving bison grazing on federal land leased by the group on Thursday.

“After shutting out public input from local communities, it’s not a surprise that President Biden’s Bureau of Land Management would rubber-stamp this radical proposal that is another step toward displacing northeast Montana’s livestock industry and replacing it with a large outdoor zoo.”

“My office is reviewing the decision closely to determine our next steps to protect ranchers and ensure the State’s interests are upheld.”

Knudsen said, “It’s just flatly illegal,” referring to the use of federal grazing permit laws for wild bison in another statement to Fox News.

Other residents of the state are pointing to the American Prairie Foundation’s plan as an encroachment on their communities from out-of-state interests.

“Those donors are able to write those contributions off as a charitable donation, so they don’t have to live with the consequences of what they’re doing to these communities,” said Chuck Denowh, policy director at the United Property Owners of Montana, speaking to Fox.

Eight hundred bison already live in lands either owned or leased by the American Prairie Foundation. The group hopes to increase its bison population by thousands.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/billionaire-funded-eco-group-quietly-acquires-farmland-rural-america-sinister-plan-aided-feds

**************************************************

Climate tropes: Don’t be fooled

Judith Sloan

Last week, I wrote about the importance of language as a means of influencing people’s thinking and, indeed, decision-making. When it comes to manipulating language, turning meanings on their head and creating short-hand terms to deride opponents, the Left has won hands down.

I used examples from economics because that’s what I know best. But let’s face it, climate tropes are another outstanding case in which language is constantly used to persuade doubters to change their minds and to bolster the case for action, aka feathering the nests of green rent-seekers.

One example is renewable energy. It’s misleading because it fails to highlight the two key features, its intermittency and its low density relative to fossil fuels. But I guess weather-dependent, unreliable energy just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

It’s worth interrogating some climate tropes because they are important to understanding how well-heeled electors fall for the claims of activists – think here of the good burghers of Kooyong, Wentworth and the like. (To be sure, having lots of assets and high incomes incline these folk to hold post-material, worthy opinions even if they know in their hearts a lot of it is wishful thinking, at best, and complete hogwash, at worst.)

Let’s start with the most fundamental of all climate chestnuts – the science is settled. Any sensible person would immediately smell a rat. What the hell is ‘the science’? There is no such thing as ‘the science’. The very process of scientific discovery means nothing is truly settled. The best scientific approach is to test a refutable hypothesis but most climate science uses black-box, simplified models with untested predictions the main output. When the predictions are back-cast using data that is already in the can, the errors are there for all to see. But for climate scientists, there are always excuses.

(Some of you may have followed the recent ructions in medical science. In the case of the efficacy of antidepressants working to affect serotonin uptake, it turns out that there is no evidence and many millions of prescriptions may have been written for no benefit to patients. Fraud turns out to be the foundation for the incorrect belief – scientific belief – that the build-up of plaque in the brain is the principal cause of dementia. But, hey, the science was settled.)

Another favourite climate platitude is that renewables are cheaper than other forms of electricity generation. A very large number of current Labor ministers fall for this line. The Prime Minister is still banging on about cheaper, more reliable renewable energy and making some ludicrous suggestion that Australia can become a renewable energy superpower – another climate cliché.

Even Defence Minister Richard Marles who is no fool, has fallen into the same trap. ‘We’ve made it very clear we’re going to act on climate change in a way which gets more renewables into the electricity grid. The real thing now is that renewable power is cheap power, and then we’ll see electricity prices come down.’ Here’s the thing, Dick, the wholesale price of electricity in Australia has risen as the proportion of renewables in the grid has risen. In the middle of last decade, the wholesale price was around $70 per megawatt hour; it is now around $350, after a very substantial expansion in renewable energy installations.

Even the green activist regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, has conceded that the recent high wholesale electricity prices and convulsions in the National Electricity Market are in part due to the lack of coal-fired generation. That’s right, not having enough coal has been causing problems. The failure to link increases in subsidised renewable energy in the grid – recently, mainly as a result of state government and corporate initiatives – to the exit and unreliability of coal-fired power is a potent reminder of how removed green dreamers are from reality. Why would any rational owner spend money maintaining or extending the life of a 24/7 coal-fired electricity plant when various governments deliberately undercut their business models and gun for their exit?

A dictum frequently used by the climate crowd and associated politicians is ‘international pariah’. Unless Australia signs up to ambitious targets; fully commits to the Paris climate agreement; contributes to the climate fund for developing countries, we risk becoming an ‘international pariah’.

But if you read international media, as I do, there is hardly ever a mention of Australia being an international pariah on climate action. Sure, egg-heads like Alok Sharma, UK parliamentarian and president of Cop 26, and John Kerry, Biden’s climate envoy, criticise Australia’s emissions reductions. But these men do this for their own self-serving reasons while Canada and New Zealand, whose leaders are fully-signed up climate evangelists, largely escape criticism because they make the right climate sounds even though their emissions reductions are much worse. And do you ever hear Sharma or Kerry, who regularly fly around the world in private jets, criticise China, the world’s largest emitter by far? It’s obvious to any rational person that China has been playing the West like a violin, pretending to be concerned about the climate while cashing in (and cornering the market) on the export of renewable paraphernalia.

Don’t get me on to electric vehicles. The preferred term is Zero Emitting Vehicles, to emphasise their virtue. As if? EVs involve 40 per cent more emissions before they even hit the road. And given that electricity is generated mostly by fossil fuels in almost all countries, it’s a bald-faced lie to call them zero emitting. We are being taken for fools. It’s time to fight back.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/08/climate-tropes/

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 7:54 PM 1 comments

Thursday, August 04, 2022

Current drought in the Colorado river basin is nothing new

Tree Rings Reveal Unmatched 2nd Century Drought in the Colorado River Basin

Subhrendu Gangopadhyay et al.

Abstract

The ongoing 22-year drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) has been extremely severe, even in the context of the longest available tree-ring reconstruction of annual flow at Lees Ferry, Arizona, dating back to 762 CE. While many southwestern drought assessments have been limited to the past 1,200 years, longer paleorecords of moisture variability do exist for the UCRB. Here, gridded drought-atlas data in the UCRB domain along with naturalized streamflow data from the instrumental period (1906–2021) are used in a K-nearest neighbor nonparametric algorithm to develop a streamflow reconstruction for the Lees Ferry gage starting in 1 CE. The reconstruction reveals a second-century drought unmatched in severity by the current drought or by well-documented medieval period droughts in the UCRB. Although data are sparse, analysis of individual long tree-ring records and other paleoclimatic data also support the occurrence of an exceptional second-century drought.

Plain Language Summary

The Colorado River drought we currently are experiencing is severe in the context of the 116-year gage record (1906–2021), but how severe is it in a long-term context? Existing tree-ring based reconstructions of Colorado River streamflow have suggested that the 22-year period 2000–2021 could be the worst drought in the southwestern United States in 1,200 years. The purpose of this study is to extend the Colorado River reconstruction back 2,000 years and to evaluate the current drought in a long-term context. We find that an even more extreme drought occurred and persisted over much of the second century. Data are sparse this far back in time, but evidence from both tree-ring data and paleoclimate data from lakes, bogs, and caves supports the existence and severity of this drought in the context of the last two millennia. Additional work is needed to learn more about this drought and its causes, but we now know that drought more persistent than even the well-documented medieval period droughts occurred in the past, expanding our understanding of the range of natural climate variability.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL098781

********************************************

Biden’s carbon energy starvation plan contains $369 billion green subsidies, $25 billion of carbon taxes

By Robert Romano

President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda has sprung back to life amid consideration of Senate Democrats’ budget reconciliation bill for 2022 that will contain $369 billion of green subsides for solar, wind and electric vehicles, and another $25 billion of additional taxes on the fossil fuel industry, all in a bid to reduce carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030.

The goal is to reduce carbon-based energy consumption and eventually, to bury carbon for good, even as sky-high energy inflation brought upon by artificial reductions in energy production of oil and gas during Covid that have still not fully recovered.

The rest of the inflation was similarly brought about by economic lockdowns, labor shortages and other production shortfalls that once demand recovered has driven prices quite high.

The truth is, it won’t get any better, any time soon unless we boost oil and gas production in the U.S. Biden’s budget will do the opposite, eliminating oil, coal and gas tax credits, resulting in an additional $25 billion of revenue over the next ten years, reports the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Additionally, the Environmental Defense Fund reports a breakdown of the $369 billion of green subsidies, including, “$250 billion for new refinancing and investment tools to reduce consumer electricity costs through reinvestment at existing and retired energy infrastructure sites,” a $27 billion green infrastructure bank, and “$40 billion in loan authority to help innovative energy technologies, like energy storage, battery and building efficiency technologies reach commercial deployment.”

Also, there is another $9 billion for consumer home rebates, $2 billion for newt transmission lines for solar and wind and $18 billion for Indian tribes energy development.

But there’s no money for new oil refineries, even though we desperately need them.

The bill will not complete the Keystone XL pipeline, even though it would boost North American oil output considerably.

The budget will not expand federal oil and gas leasing or subsidize it in any way, even as carbon-based energy shortages are strangling Europe’s economy and emboldening Russia, which just cut gas output to Europe via the Nordstream pipeline in half.

In fact, oil production in the U.S. is still below pre-Covid levels, and natural gas has only just caught up, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports. Coal production peaked in 2008 at 1.17 billion short tons, according to EIA. By 2020, it was down to 535 million short tons.

There is no provision to eliminate environmental, social and other non-fiduciary considerations in tax-free retirement investments, even though those subsidies are absolutely strangling the movement of capital into carbon that we desperate need.

The goal is to strangle the U.S. carbon energy industry, and it’s already working.

If for no other reason than the war in Ukraine, Biden’s green economic transformation should have been postponed, but sensing Congress is slipping through his grasp with the November midterms rapidly approaching — Republicans are favored to win back the House this year — he is proceeding apace with his anti-carbon agenda.

In the latest Economist-YouGov poll only 11 percent said climate change and the environment was their most important issue. 22 percent say inflation, and prices, and another 11 percent say the economy and jobs.

That might call into question just how sustainable Biden’s plan is politically, if it poses so many risks abroad and here at home. In that sense, this is all a huge gamble — that the public won’t overwhelmingly turn against this carbon energy starvation plan in 2022 — and again in 2024.

https://dailytorch.com/2022/08/bidens-carbon-energy-starvation-plan-contains-369-billion-green-subsidies-25-billion-of-carbon-taxes/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=48f7c292-b635-40e2-8387-01348c6c0a97

****************************************************

End Carbon Imperialists’ Impoverishment of Africa

When citizens in London, Vienna, and Berlin are at risk of blackouts due to energy shortages, their governments turn to coal-fired plants to rescue them. We witnessed this as the Russian gas embargo forced European states to suppress their revulsion to coal — a bit like a produce shortage causing vegans to run to steak houses.

But what about Africa? Millions of Africans are being systematically forced by the elites of Europe and North America into a future free of fossil fuels and rife with poverty. This is carbon imperialism where Western leaders, who have embraced climate superstitions, control what kind of energy people in Africa use.

Philosopher Olúf?́mi O. Táíwò calls the phenomenon climate colonialism, defining it as the

“deepening or expansion of foreign domination through climate initiatives that exploit poorer nations’ resources or otherwise compromises their sovereignty.”

The story of economic success is the same regardless of where one looks: North America and Europe during the industrial era or the India and China of recent decades. In all cases, fossil fuels have been the predominant drivers behind meaningful, long-term economic development.

To expect Africa to produce the same out of thin air (literally wind technology) is to display an arrogance that denies the physical realities of generating electricity and the energy poverty of millions.

“Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest energy access rates in the world,” reports the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Electricity reaches only about half of its people; roughly 600 million people lack electricity and 890 million cook with traditional fuels (polluting and harmful).”

The online publication ESI Africa points out that

“a kettle boiled twice a day by a family in Britain uses 5x as much electricity as a person in Mali uses per year. A Tanzanian takes 8 years to consume as much electricity as an American consumes in 1 month, while a freezer in the United States consumes 10x more electricity than a Liberian in North Africa uses in 1 year.”

Africans thus have the barest of energy supplies, far less than what is regarded as a basic convenience in rest of the world. And no end to abject poverty in sight.

The solution to Africa’s immediate energy needs and long-term economic improvement is more investment in coal, oil, and natural gas — fuels that offer reliability and affordability.

“It is through manufacturing goods, be it value addition in agriculture, high tech components, tractors, machine tools, household goods or even bread that sub-Saharan African economies will reduce poverty by supplying productive employment and enabling economic growth,” explains PD Lawton, a researcher committed to the continent’s restoration.

The International Energy Agency notes that current investments in the power sector, especially fossil fuels, is well below the required levels, though easily achievable. However, Africa, already under-financed, faces campaigns to prohibit funding of fossil-fuel projects.

Climate crusaders accomplish their objectives both through international policies and domestic measures. Internationally, carbon imperialists use devices such as the Paris Agreement to ban hydrocarbons. Further suffocating development, major funding institutes are halting the flow of funds to fossil-fuel projects. The World Bank, African Development Bank, and numerous large donor organizations in Europe have stated that they won’t finance any new such initiatives in Africa.

This is condemning African states to perpetual poverty and to dependence on pathetically unreliable renewable energy installations. At the domestic level, the climate crusade is led by environmentalists and and so-call climate-justice groups.

In South Africa for example, activists in 2021 told Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe to abandon plans to develop 1,500 megawatts of new coal-fired generation or be taken to court. Grassroot activism and propaganda are key tools of global carbon imperialists to sway public opinion.

However, more and more leaders are standing up to the imperialists. In June, Niger President Mohamed Bazoum said,

“Africa is being punished by the decisions of Western countries to end public financing for foreign fossil-fuel projects by the end of 2022…We are going to continue to fight, we have fossil fuels that should be exploited.

“Let the African continent be allowed to exploit its natural resources. It is frankly unbelievable that those who have been exploiting oil and its derivatives for more than a century prevent African countries from reaping the value of their resources.”

President Bazoum is right. To use naturally available energy sources is an inalienable right of every sovereign nation. Africa’s destiny should be decided by its people.

https://co2coalition.org/2022/07/27/end-carbon-imperialists-impoverishment-of-africa/

*********************************************

Electric vehicles no good for towing anything

Australia is a nation of ute [pickup] and 4WD enthusiasts, and this is the market EV makers need to focus on if they want to win us over.

Chinese electric car maker BYD says it plans to introduce five models in Australia within the next two years, including an electric dual-cab ute.

“We love the ute. We have a product that’s been in development for some time,” EVDirect managing director Luke Todd told Drive.

“We will hold back on announcing actual timing, but what I can say is when the BYD electric ute does come to the country, it will be a game-changer.

“It’s coming. I know it’s coming. There’s a whole factory prepping to build this thing.

But the first electric ute to be sold in Australia will probs be the Chinese LDV eT60, which is already being sold in NZ.

Drive says the same model with a slightly different name is due in Australian showrooms within the next six months or so at an estimated cost of $60,000.

And yet these pioneering EV utes have nothing on the tried-and-true diesel models.

“Maximum towing capacity for the LDV eT60 electric ute is rated at 1500kg (versus 3000kg for the diesel variant),” Drive says.

“However, LDV advises driving range is cut in half when towing at the maximum 1500kg capacity.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/stockhead/high-voltage-aussies-will-get-electric-ute-but-it-wont-be-a-tesla/news-story/cd3054428982dc62a5d29ac7e9b7e9b0

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 10:09 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, August 03, 2022

New report: Little evidence of changes in extreme weather trends

London, 27 July - A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds that the IPCC's recent shift in methodology has led to misleading claims about changes in weather extremes.

The review, from physicist Dr Ralph Alexander, finds that IPCC claims that many of these weather extremes are increasing significantly are largely unsupported by observational evidence.

According to Dr Alexander

"On almost every kind of extreme weather, with the possible exemption of heatwaves, the evidence for significant changes is scant. But the latest IPCC report has introduced novel 'attribution' statistics and now insists that things are getting worse. It's yet another case of scientists trying to scare the public into compliance."

Dr Alexander's paper looks at:

- droughts
- floods
- hurricanes
- tornadoes
- wildfires
- hot and cold extremes
- coral bleaching.

He concludes that

"The mistaken belief that weather extremes are worsening because of climate change is more a perception, fostered by media coverage, than reality. The IPCC's new statistical method is playing an unworthy part in bringing this sorry state of affairs to pass."

GWPF invited the Royal Society and the Met Office to review this paper, and to submit a response to be published as an appendix to it. No reply was received.

https://mailchi.mp/5d2a92a8aecc/new-report-little-evidence-of-changes-in-extreme-weather-trends-190347?e=cc88839e92

*********************************************

Gov. DeSantis Declares War on Environmental, Social, and Governance Investing Scam

On July 27, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis lobbed a broadside attack on the latest woke investment scheme that has become all the rage among Wall Street elites and C-Suite executives: environmental, social, and governance investing.

Specifically, DeSantis announced that he will seek to enact “legislative proposals and administrative actions to protect Floridians from the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) movement which threatens the vitality of the American economy and Americans’ economic freedom by targeting disfavored individuals and industries to advance a woke ideological agenda.”

According to DeSantis, “The leveraging of corporate power to impose an ideological agenda on society represents an alarming trend.”

He added, “From Wall Street banks to massive asset managers and big tech companies, we have seen the corporate elite use their economic power to impose policies on the country that they could not achieve at the ballot box. Through the actions I announced today, we are protecting Floridians from woke capital and asserting the authority of our constitutional system over ideological corporate power.”

In a nut-shell, ESG investing vastly increases the power and economic influence wielded by giant investment firms and multinational corporations by allowing them to determine who and which companies will have access to capital based solely upon their adherence to ESG scores.

Moreover, because ESG investing is entirely subjective in nature, and the metrics are apt to change at any moment, it allows large investment firms like BlackRock to nudge society in any direction our “betters” choose at a given point in time.

As of right now, ESG scores heavily favor companies that toe the “climate change/global warming is an existential crisis” line. They also currently reward companies that are all-in when it comes to implementing “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” initiatives. However, ESG metrics are not set in stone, and can be deployed to accomplish any woke cause with a few tweaks.

Yet, this pales in comparison to the greatest concern regarding the ESG movement: ESG investing allows powerful elites like BlackRock’s Larry Fink to favor their preferred social objectives with everyday Americans’ investment funds above their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder profit.

Such is why DeSantis outlined three goals for his anti-ESG proposals.

First, the Florida governor willcall for legislation that would, “prohibit big banks, credit card companies and money transmitters from discriminating against customers for their religious, political, or social beliefs.”

Second, he will push for a bill that would, “prohibit State Board of Administration (SBA) fund managers from considering ESG factors when investing the state’s money.”

Third, he will seek to convince Sunshine State lawmakers to pass legislation that would “require SBA fund managers to only consider maximizing the return on investment on behalf of Florida’s retirees.”

According to DeSantis, “The proposed legislation will amend Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices statute to prohibit discriminatory practices by large financial institutions based on ESG social credit score metrics. This ‘ESG score’ is a framework created to force companies to meet ESG standards and arbitrarily includes metrics based on political affiliation, religious beliefs, certain industry engagement, and ESG benchmarks. Violations will be considered deceptive, and unfair trade practices will be punished according to the law.”

Furthermore, he “will propose an update to the fiduciary duties of the State Board of Administration investment fund managers and investment advisors to clearly define the factors fiduciaries are to consider in investment decisions. Environmental, social, or corporate governance factors will not be included in the state of Florida’s investment management practices.”

If DeSantis and the state legislature are able to accomplish these three goals in the 2023 legislative session, it would certainly be a big blow to the ESG movement.

Make no mistake, ESG investing is a scam with the purpose of increasing the wealth and power of multinational corporations, huge investment firms, big banks, and global elites. But, it could also trigger a grassroots tidal wave of opposition to the crass cronyism that is inherent to the ESG scheme.

At this point, it is too early to tell which direction ESG investing will take, but the fact that states like Florida (and Kentucky) are pushing back is a very good sign for those who favor free-market capitalism, also known as shareholder capitalism, over the corrupt arrangement that is “stakeholder capitalism” and ESG investing.

https://townhall.com/columnists/christalgo/2022/07/29/gov-desantis-declares-war-on-environmental-social-and-governance-investing-scam-n2610947

**************************************************

Electric Car Drivers: Why You Might Not Be Pumped Over Privacy-Jolting Mileage Taxes

The environmental impact of electric cars may still be unknown, but leaders are growing concerned about the threat they pose to the financing of the nation’s highway system. Because freeways and bridges are funded, in large part, through federal and state taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, the battery-powered future will test whether roads can just be paved with good intentions.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are trying to devise new ways to raise that fuel tax revenue, which in fiscal year 2020 delivered $35 billion to the federal government and an additional $51 billion to state and local governments. But experts say that proposed fixes to the anticipated highway funding shortfall – involving charging drivers for the miles they travel by tracking their movement – pose a significant threat to personal privacy and liberty.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed with bipartisan support last year, authorized the Department of Transportation to launch new pilot programs to test ways to collect necessary fees. These include a range of high-tech means such as accessing location data from third-party on-vehicle diagnostic devices, smart phone applications, telemetric data collected by automakers, motor vehicle data obtained by car insurance companies, data obtained from fueling stations, and “any other method that the Secretary [of Transportation] considers appropriate.”

“Location data” – that is, information about where people are and where they’ve been – “is highly sensitive,” said Lee Tien, legislative director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that defends civil liberties in cyberspace. It can reveal “what they do, who they’re with, where they worship, what medical procedures they’re having.”

While the infrastructure act authorizes a pilot program to test collecting the personal information needed to charge drivers for their use of roads and highways, it doesn’t answer the far thornier questions about how to protect that data. Will only the feds track drivers? Will each state and locality that currently depends on fuel taxes also monitor drivers? If so, will the data be pooled? Will destinations be tracked along with mileage?

These questions are arising as the Biden administration demands more energy-related data across the board as it seeks to achieve its ambitious climate change goals. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, wants almost all U.S. companies to tally and disclose the total amount of carbon emitted in producing their products. The Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation proposed new regulations in July requiring states to measure carbon dioxide emissions “associated with transportation” and report those figures to the federal government. States will be required to establish emissions targets aligned with “national policy” established by Biden’s climate-related executive orders.

Advocates of new highway user fees acknowledge the threat to privacy and promise to find ways to protect sensitive information. Asked about the risks posed by tracking vehicles, Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, ranking Republican member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, pointed to a previous statement: “For years, I have been talking about the need to eliminate the gas and diesel taxes. It’s time to move this solution toward reality, but in doing so, we must ensure that privacy concerns are addressed.”

The Department of Transportation isn’t taking on these issues from scratch. For more than a decade, DOT has been awarding grants to states willing to work out the kinks in a pay-as-you-go system. Pilot programs have been funded in states such as Minnesota, Iowa, and Nevada. The Nevada Vehicle Miles Traveled Fee Study found “The greatest barrier to public acceptance is recognized as insuring driver privacy to the greatest extent allowed by available technology.”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/08/02/electric_car_drivers_why_you_might_not_be_pumped_over_privacy-jolting_mileage_taxes_845286.html

*******************************************************

Canberra: where electricity is a luxury the poor can't afford

‘Where do you go?’

They are all older women, retirees from the federal and territory public services, the ASO 5 and 6 level officers who kept the wheels of government turning – carrying out the programs, and watching their section heads and directors take credit for their work.

They’re not talking about where to eat lunch. They’re discussing where (and if) they should go to spend a few hours in heated premises to escape Canberra’s freezing weather after temperatures dropped 2 and 3 degrees below.

One who recently ‘VR-ed’ (Voluntary Retired) still goes back to her old workplace, usually late morning, when the security guard who remembers her gives a nod and a smile as she settles into one of the comfortable settees in the reception area.

Another heads for Canberra institution, the Southern Cross Club in Woden, where you can sit over newspapers and a coffee for half a day. The Hellenic Club is another popular choice.

It’s an old government service tradition in Canberra that, when winter sets in, people start arriving at their desks early. It isn’t unusual to find a roomful of people working away by 7 am. And if you rode your bike to work, braving the fog, or can convince your colleagues you have, you might even be entitled to take a quick hot shower, courtesy of the taxpayer.

Public libraries in the National Capital are now considered, by staff and patrons alike, to be ‘community centres’ where people come to read, use the computers, charge their phones, and use the toilets. It’s where clients of the NDIS, escorted by carers, are brought and propped up in their wheelchairs in front of computers or seated in deep armchairs by the magazine stands. Some, abandoned by their carers, shout incoherently for attention. Newly arrived migrants – Somalis, Iraqis, Syrians – jostle for attention of the library staff, asking for translation assistance with various forms and declarations.

Our libraries, warm and welcoming, have a crowd at their doors before the 10 am opening. A couple of those outdoor heaters that restaurants use were given a try-out a week or so ago, but vanished after a day, considered to be too expensive in use. Still, as the territory government has promised an upgrade for Woden public library, the heaters may re-emerge.

We are reaching a point where clean water and electricity are considered luxuries.

Retail electricity bills in the ACT will rise by around $333 a year for most families, the ‘typical households’ with a couple of kids and people who take hot showers and wash their clothes. And, of course, in winter, need their heating.

Residential gas bills are expected to rise by around $247 on average, adding hundreds of dollars to power bills.

Wood stoves, once officially banned, now simply disapproved of, have returned. The wood-burning pot belly stove, once a feature of many older Canberra homes, once considered illegal, is making a comeback, though the territory government has issued a plea for users of wood burners to use only dry, seasoned wood.

How, as ‘Macca’, perhaps the most-loved voice on ABC Canberra radio asked once morning, has it come to this in Australia?

That electricity that most of us as a taken-for-granted household utility, has become something that only the affluent may be able to afford is frightening. That hot water may be rationed in households – by householders themselves, if not by authorities – is alarming.

Living in Hong Kong in the late Sixties, when water pipelines were blocked by China during the madness of the Cultural Revolution, our Yau Yat Chuen apartment block was much visited, due to the fact that we, and our neighbours, had a well in the garden.

As a journalist in Jakarta, I had to remember to fill the large plastic tubs in the bathroom to cover our washing and drinking needs for the day, when the water was turned off for a couple of hours to conserve energy.

Australia’s cities, including Canberra, may be headed for similar occurrences with the shutting down of coal-fired stations and unrealistic dependence on wind, solar, and battery energy. This country is not – not yet – heading down that road. But it may soon do so.

Excuse me while I head to the local library to grab a seat before they’re all taken.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/08/canberra-where-electricity-is-a-luxury-the-poor-cant-afford

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 9:02 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, August 02, 2022

At the bottom of the pacific ocean lies a solution to the imminent battery shortage

The objections below to mining the ocean nodules are totally insubstantial: Just nervous twitches. No facts or reasoning offered. We seem to be expected to serve Greenie neuroses

Scattered three miles deep along the floor of the central Pacific are trillions of black, misshapen nuggets that may just be the solution to an impending energy crisis. Similar in size and appearance to partially burned charcoal briquettes, the nuggets are called polymetallic nodules, and are an amalgamation of nickel, cobalt, manganese and other rare earth metals, formed through a complex biochemical process in which shark teeth and fish bones are encased by minerals accreted out of ocean waters over millions of years.

Marine biologists say they are part of one of the least-understood environments on earth, holding, if not the secret to life on this planet, at least something equally fundamental to the health of its oceans. Gerard Barron, the Australian CEO of seabed- mining company the Metals Company, calls them something else: “a battery in a rock,” and “the easiest way to solve climate change.” The nodules, which are strewn across the 4.5 million-sq-km (1.7 million-sq-mi.) swath of international ocean between Hawaii and Mexico known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (CCZ), contain significant amounts of the metals needed to make the batteries that power our laptops, phones and electric cars. Barron estimates that there is enough cobalt and nickel in those nuggets to power 4.8 billion electric vehicles—more than twice the number of vehicles on the road today, worldwide. Mining them, he says, would be as simple as vacuuming golf balls offa putting green.

But conservationists say doing so could unleash a cascade effect worse than the current trajectory of climate change. Oceans are a vital carbon sink, absorbing up to a quarter of global carbon emissions a year. The process of extracting the nodules is unlikely to disrupt that ability on its own, but the very nature of the world’s oceans—largely contiguous, with a system of currents that circumnavigate the globe—means that what happens in one area could have unforeseen impacts on the other side of the planet. “If this goes wrong, it could trigger a series of unintended consequences that messes with ocean stability, ultimately affecting life everywhere on earth,” says Pippa Howard, director of the biodiversity-conservation organization Fauna and Flora International. The nodules are a core part of a biome roughly the size of the Amazon rain forest, she notes. “They’ve got living ecosystems on them. Taking those nodules and then using them to make batteries is like making cement out of coral reefs.”

The debate over the ethics of mining the earth’s last untouched frontier is growing in both intensity and consequence. It pits biologist against geologist, conservationist against environmentalist, and manufacturer against supplier in a world grappling with a paradox—one that will define our path to a future free of fossil fuels: sustainable energy that will run cleaner but also require metals and resources whose extraction will both contribute to global warming and impact biodiversity. So as nations commit to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, the conflict is no longer between fossil-fuel firms and clean-energy proponents, but rather over what ecosystems we are willing to sacrifice in the process.

History is littered with stories of well-intended environmental interventions that have gone catastrophically wrong; for example, South American cane toads introduced into Australia in the 1930s first failed to control beetles attacking sugarcane, then spread unchecked across the continent, poisoning wildlife and pets.

https://blendle.com/i/time/deep-questions/bnl-time-20210903-9cbd2768dcc

************************************************

A message from Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation

As you will be aware, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has shaken up 30 years of European climate and energy policy. The shock of Russian tanks rolling into a European nation and close to the EU's borders has blown up the old consensus. The war has triggered a new geopolitical conflict which is overshadowing and gradually demoting Europe's Net Zero agenda.

In short, we are at the beginning of a new energy policy debate that is likely to radically change the climate agenda for years to come.

A new era, marked by growing energy insecurity, resource competition, and geopolitical rivalry is moving Net Zero policies rapidly down on the list of national and international priorities. Russia's invasion is accelerating Europe's worst energy crisis since WWII, exposing the continent's near total reliance on Russia together with its self-inflicted inability to exploit its own domestic energy.

Soaring energy prices and disruptions in Russian oil and natural gas deliveries are subsequently derailing Europe's Net Zero plans and the planned transition away from fossil fuels. Energy bills are skyrocketing with warnings that millions of households will struggle to heat their homes this winter.

Almost overnight, ministers are prioritising energy security and energy costs. Many European nations are shifting back to coal and building new pipelines and LNG terminals to import gas from elsewhere.

For more than 12 years, the GWPF has been at the forefront of public warnings and calls for scrutiny about the inevitable failure of utopian climate policies. Earlier this year, I spoke in Washington DC and numerous other US cities to brief US lawmakers about the unfolding disaster in Europe and to warn Americans not to repeat the disastrous mistakes the EU has been embarking on in recent decades.

In addition, we have also published numerous papers on the futility of unilateral decarbonisation, of relying on unreliable renewables, and on the benefits of domestic shale gas development which would almost certainly help to bring down the cost of energy and significantly enhance our energy security which is now more crucial than ever.

Whether the deepening conflict with Russia will lead governments to gradually water down or move away from Net Zero commitments remains an open question, although signs of significant rollbacks are already evident in the UK and all over Europe.

For years, we have been raising questions about the astronomical costs of Net Zero and the self-harm of shale gas bans. In recent months, a growing number of British MPs and ministers have begun to speak out and our concerns are now widely and consistently covered by mainstream media. This welcome scrutiny signals a new phase in the climate and energy policy debates.

benny.peiser@thegwpf.org

**********************************************

More on the "Inflation Reduction Act"

Naturally, with the economy falling into what might otherwise be a mild recession, Congress led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are back with President Biden’s $370 billion Build Back Better cacophony of green subsidies and $327 billion of class warfare tax hikes — now the Orwellian-titled Inflation Reduction Act — aimed at higher earners and producers.

The Biden plan doubles taxes on coal per ton, by $0.60 per ton for underground coal to $1.10 per ton, and by $0.30 per ton for surface coal to $0.55 per ton at a time when electricity costs are up 13.7 percent the past twelve months.

And the 15 percent corporate minimum tax would hurt manufacturing, complains the Wall Street Journal editorial board: “Evidence is emerging that the new Schumer-Manchin 15% minimum tax on corporate-book income is especially harmful to U.S. manufacturing firms. An analysis by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), which is hardly a nest of supply-siders, found that 49.7% of the tax would hit U.S. manufacturers.” Whatever happened to Biden’s plans to increase production to offset the global supply crisis that caused the inflation in the first place?

When you want more of something, subsidize it. And when you want less of it, tax it.

In this case, Biden wants to tax carbon energy production and U.S. manufacturing, and continue the green transformation of the American economy via stakeholder-driven corporatism, strangling supply chains and driving up costs even more at the very moment when Americans are struggling the most to keep their household budgets in check.

https://dailytorch.com/2022/08/bidens-carbon-taxes-green-subsidies-and-manufacturing-tax-hikes-sound-like-a-recession

****************************************************

Most interesting: Sea levels fall in Northern Australia

I pointed at the time of the big coral bleaching scare of a few years ago to some Indonesian research which suggested that coral bleaching on the Great Barrier reef was probably caused by low sea levels -- but all Australian sources asserted that global warming caused the bleaching. Sea levels were never mentioned

But we now have below official confirmation that sea levels DID fall around that time and that there was an "unusually EXTREME drop in sea level"

So the great bleaching scare was a crock enabled by a big cover-up

In the summer of 2015-16, one of the most catastrophic mangrove diebacks ever recorded globally occurred in the Gulf of Carpentaria.

Some 40 million mangroves died across more than 2,000 kilometres of coastline, releasing nearly 1 million tonnes of carbon — equivalent to 1,000 jumbo jets flying return from Sydney to Paris.

After six years of searching for answers, scientists have formally identified what is causing the mass destruction. They hope the discovery will help predict and possibly prevent future events.

Mangrove ecologist and senior research scientist at James Cook University (JCU) Norman Duke was behind the discovery.

Dr Duke found that unusually low sea levels caused by severe El Niño events meant mangrove trees "essentially died of thirst".

"The key factor responsible for this catastrophe appears to have been the sudden 40-centimetre drop in sea level that lasted for about six months, coinciding with no rainfall, killing vast areas of mangroves," he said.

Author assisting with data analysis and JCU researcher Adam Canning said the study's evidence for sea-level drop being the cause was found in the discovery of an earlier mass dieback in 1982, observed in satellite imagery.

"The 1982 dieback also coincided with an unusually extreme drop in sea level during another very severe El Niño event. We know from satellite data that the mangroves took at least 15 years to recover from that dieback," Dr Canning said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-02/mangrove-dieback-gulf-of-carpentaria-scientists-find-cause/101290968

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************

Posted by JR at 7:39 PM 0 comments

Monday, August 01, 2022

They really hate our guts

In the U.S., people eat more protein than they need to. And though it might not be bad for human health, this excess does pose a problem for the country’s waterways. The nation’s wastewater is laden with the leftovers from protein digestion: nitrogen compounds that can feed toxic algal blooms and pollute the air and drinking water. This source of nitrogen pollution even rivals that from fertilizers washed off of fields growing food crops, new research suggests.

When we overconsume protein—whether it comes from lentils, supplements or steak—our body breaks the excess down into urea, a nitrogen-containing compound that exits the body via urine and ultimately ends up in sewage. Maya Almaraz, a biogeochemist at the University of California, Davis, and her colleagues wanted to see how much of this nitrogen is being flushed into the U.S. sewage system because of a protein-heavy diet. The researchers combined population data and previous work on how much excess protein the average American eats and found that the majority of nitrogen pollution present in wastewater—some 67 to 100 percent—is a by-product of what people consume. “We think a lot about sewage nitrogen. We know that’s an issue,” Almaraz says. “But I didn’t know how much of that is actually affected by the choices we’re making way upstream—when we go the grocery store, when we cook a meal and what we end up putting in our bodies.”

Once it enters the environment, the nitrogen in urea can trigger a spectrum of ecological impacts known as the “nitrogen cascade.” Under certain chemical conditions, and in the presence of particular microbes, urea can break down to form gases of oxidized nitrogen. These gases reach the atmosphere, where nitrous oxide (N2O) can contribute to warming via the greenhouse effect and nitrogen oxides (NOx) can cause acid rain. Other times, algae and cyanobacteria, photosynthetic bacteria also called blue-green algae, feed on urea directly. The nitrogen helps them grow much faster than they would normally, clogging vital water supplies with blooms that can produce toxins that are harmful to humans, other animals and plants. And when the algae eventually die, the problem is not over. Microorganisms that feast on dead algae use up oxygen in the water, leading to “dead zones,” where many aquatic species simply cannot survive, in rivers, lakes and oceans. Blooms from Puget Sound to Tampa, Fla., have caused large fish die-offs.

Although it is possible to treat algal blooms, many of the current methods—such as spraying clay particles or chemicals over the surface of a bloom to kill and sink the algae—are not always effective at eliminating all of the harmful growth. Some of these methods can even lead to additional pollution. So the best strategy for dealing with the effects of nitrogen pollution is prevention, says Patricia Glibert, an oceanographer at the University of Maryland, who was not involved with the new study.

One option for preventing nitrogen from getting into the environment is improving wastewater treatment plants. The technology exists to remove 90 percent of nitrogen from wastewater, but only 1 percent of all U.S. sewage is currently treated this way, partly because the technology is so expensive. Equipping plants in China to remove nitrogen from three quarters of the country’s urban sewage cost more than $20 billion. Almaraz and her team suggest, however, that curbing nitrogen pollution could be approached more quickly with a change in eating habits that could save billions of dollars in the long term.

Their new study, published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, broke down protein requirements by age (adults 50 to 70 years old need the most) for the current U.S. population and projected future populations out to 2055. By midcentury, the country’s population is expected to be larger overall and to have a greater percentage of older people. The researchers calculated the amount of nitrogen that would enter the environment if people ate today’s average American diet and if they instead reduced their protein intake to only what is nutritionally needed. This shift in diet alone could reduce the amount of nitrogen reaching aquatic ecosystems by 12 percent today and by nearly 30 percent in the future, according to the study’s results. Such a change could also help reduce damaging nitrogen pollution while wastewater infrastructure catches up.

“Many people think that we need to all switch to becoming vegetarians. Obviously, that’s not practical. That’s not something that is really ever going to happen,” Glibert says. Rather than cutting out any foods entirely, she suggests consumers could switch to a “demitarian” diet—an approach that focuses on reducing the consumption of meat and dairy, which currently make up about two thirds of the protein eaten in the U.S. “Enjoy your steak, enjoy your burger but go modest on your meat consumption in your following meal,” she says.

“One cool area that opens up here is how human behavior can influence our environment,” Almaraz says. “I think it can be really empowering to people to understand that, ‘hey, my choices—once those add up with other people making similar choices—can actually have a positive impact.’”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eating-too-much-protein-makes-pee-a-problem-pollutant-in-the-u-s/#

********************************************

Inflation Reduction Act—or Radical Green New Deal?

Make no mistake, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act unveiled Wednesday by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., will do nothing that its supporters state—in fact, it will do quite the opposite.

If passed, the act will increase the prices that Americans pay for energy, make the United States less energy secure, and do absolutely nothing for the environment. Perhaps more insidious, it will hurt Americans who live in coal-rich states, like Manchin’s West Virginia, the most.

Focusing on just the energy and climate section of the act, the top-line numbers are staggering. Like Oprah Winfrey handing out gifts to her studio audience, the act would use $369 billion in taxpayer funding to dole out favors to every special interest in Washington, D.C.

Renewables—you get $30 billion!

Utilities—you get $30 billion!

Doors and windows—you get 10 years of subsidies!

Transportation—you get tens of billions of dollars!

The list goes on for hundreds of pages and details a combination of tax credits, subsidies, and regulations for the energy choices preferred by the D.C. elite, such as wind and solar, while increasing the costs to access more reliable, more abundant energy sources like gas and oil on federal lands.

The entire bill is predicated on misperceptions (or misrepresentations) about energy markets. Not only does the act’s energy section commence with the extension of energy tax credits for technologies that we are continuously told are already competitive, but it also dictates a series of new labor and wage regulations. This is odd given how many times President Joe Biden tells us about the good-paying jobs his environmental agenda will create.

Both can’t be true. Either renewable energy is competitive and creates good, high-wage jobs—in which case the act is unnecessary—or we are being lied to, and the act is simply a cynical effort to line the pockets of special interests, empower Washington bureaucrats, and disempower American individuals and businesses in the name of advancing a leftist agenda.

All of this leads to less energy security, and here is why:

American energy consumers, i.e., families and businesses, value affordability and reliability in their energy choices. In a system of free enterprise, America’s energy companies compete for that business and put a premium on what consumers want. The result is America’s current system of energy production that, when allowed to operate with minimal government interference, powers the American economy with the affordable and reliable energy we all want.

The American free enterprise system will also yield the sorts of technological advances that Biden and his fellow Green New Dealers say they want. That’s because as Americans’ preferences shift, the market will respond with firms offering new products to meet that demand.

And while that new solar panel or electric vehicle might be more expensive at first, competitive pressures will force manufactures to develop new business practices and innovations to bring prices down. The result is more energy choices, lower energy prices, and a strong, more secure energy economy.

But the Inflation Reduction Act replaces this proven system with the historically disproven approach that empowers politicians and bureaucrats to attempt to control the economy through legislative fiat and financial bribery.

The problem is not just wasted taxpayer dollars but how these policies distort long-term investment decisions.

Huge government subsidies directed to certain industries make those industries attractive investments, and private investment starts flowing to things government wants rather than toward what Americans value.

This starves proven energy sources and promising new ones of new investment while bankrolling energy sources and products that consumers would otherwise not want.

Over time, the market shifts from offering competitive products independently to offering costly and less reliable products that rely on taxpayer support.

This is not just theory. Despite decades of subsidies and government-sponsored publicity, wind and solar remain dependent on taxpayer support and government mandates.

Or consider the petroleum refining industry, which has lost significant production capacity in recent years. This isn’t because Americans no longer value affordable gasoline but because political leaders like Biden have mandated that refiners blend in ethanol and have stated repeatedly a desire to end the gas and oil industry.

Americans are now less secure because these policies are undermining the refining industry’s incentive to expand current capacity as well as invest in future capacity, which leaves America’s energy infrastructure unable to keep up with demand. The result is higher prices at the pump. The Schumer-Manchin-Biden act would make the situation worse with its massive biofuel subsidies.

According a summary of the act distributed by Senate Democrats, the bill would “reduce carbon emissions by roughly 40 percent by 2030.” My Heritage Foundation colleagues recently produced a study that looked at an eerily similar policy.

Using a clone of the model used by Biden’s Energy Information Administration, they analyzed the impact of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 44% by 2030, and the results are staggering.

In summary, they found that such carbon dioxide reductions would cause annual average job losses of 1.2 million with peak annual job losses reaching 7.8 million. Add to that $7.7 trillion in lost economic growth. That’s an income loss of $87,000 per family of four—and an average increase in household electricity expenses of 23%.

Because the target of the Schumer-Manchin-Biden approach is carbon dioxide and coal, the negative impact would be exacerbated in states that rely heavily on consuming, extracting, or refining conventional fuels like oil, natural gas, and coal.

Consider West Virginia, which is not only the nation’s second-leading producer of coal but also gets 88% of its electricity from coal. It’s not hyperbolic to predict that the Schumer-Manchin-Biden plan would be devastating for the state.

Some might argue that the massive economic costs are worth it if we “save the planet.” But here is the thing: The planet is not in environmental peril. Even the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change downgraded its most extreme climate projections to a low likelihood in its most recent assessment.

Real-life numbers back this up with the death toll from climate-related disasters decreasing 96% over the past century. And even if that weren’t the case, this bill would do nothing to help.

In fact, eliminating all conventional fuel-based carbon dioxide emissions would have virtually no impact on global temperatures, even taking the assumptions of global-warming alarmists at face value (which we absolutely should not). Indeed, my Heritage colleague, Kevin Dayaratna, used the climate model developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research to demonstrate this fact.

Every American should be very clear on what the so-called Inflation Reduction Act will and will not do. It will line the pockets of special interests, it will advance a radical leftist agenda, and it will make Americans poorer and give them fewer energy choices. And it won’t live up to its promises: It will not have any impact on the climate and it will not make Americans more energy secure.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/07/28/inflation-reduction-act-or-radical-green-new-deal/

***********************************************

Why we can’t afford the rich world’s fossil fuel hypocrisy

The rich world’s fossil fuel hypocrisy is on full display in its response to the global energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

While the wealthy G7 countries admonish the world’s poor to use only renewables because of climate concerns, Europe and the US are going begging to Arab nations to expand oil production. Germany is reopening coal power plants while Spain and Italy are ramping up African gas production. So many European countries have asked Botswana to mine more coal that the country will have to triple its exports.

A single person in the rich world uses more fossil fuel energy than all the energy available to 23 poor Africans. The rich world became wealthy by massively exploiting fossil fuels, which today provides more than three-quarters of its energy. Solar and wind deliver less than 3 per cent of the rich world’s energy.

Yet the rich are choking off funding for any new fossil fuels in the developing world. Most of the world’s poorest four billion people have no meaningful energy access, so the rich blithely tell them to “leapfrog” from no energy to a green nirvana of solar panels and wind turbines.

This promised nirvana is a sham consisting of wishful thinking and green marketing. The world’s rich would never accept off-grid, renewable energy themselves – nor should the poor. Consider the experience of Dharnai, a village which Greenpeace tried to turn into India’s first solar-powered community in 2014.

Greenpeace received glowing, global media attention when it declared that Dharnai would refuse “to give in to the trap of the fossil fuel industry”. But the day the solar electricity was turned on, the batteries were drained within hours. A boy remembers wanting to do his homework, but there wasn’t enough power for his family’s one lamp.

Villagers were prohibited from using fridges or TVs because they would exhaust the system. They couldn’t use electric cookstoves, so they had to continue burning wood and dung, which create terrible air pollution. Across the developing world, millions die from indoor pollution that the World Health Organisation says is equivalent to each person smoking two packs of cigarettes every day.

Greenpeace invited the state’s chief minister to admire their handiwork. He was met by a crowd waving signs demanding “real electricity” (the kind you can use to run a refrigerator or a stove, and that your children can use to do their homework) and not “fake electricity” (meaning solar energy that could do none of these things).

When Dharnai was finally connected to the power grid, more and more people dropped their solar connections. An academic study found a big reason was that the overwhelmingly coal-powered grid electricity was three times cheaper than the solar energy. What’s more, it could actually power appliances people wanted such as TVs and stoves. Today, the disused solar power system is covered in thick dust and the project site is a cattle shed.

To be sure, solar energy can charge a cell phone and run a light, which can be useful – but it is often expensive. A new study on solar lamps in India’s most populous state shows that even with hefty subsidies, solar lamps are worth much less than their cost for most people. In rich countries such as Germany and Spain, most solar and wind would never have been installed if not for subsidies.

Solar and wind are incapable of delivering the power needed for industrialisation, powering water pumps, tractors and machines – all the ingredients needed to lift people out of poverty. As rich countries are now also discovering, solar and wind energy remain fundamentally unreliable. No sun or wind means no power. Battery technology offers no answers: globally, there are only enough batteries to power global average electricity consumption for one minute and 15 seconds. Even by 2030, with a projected rapid battery scaleup, they would last less than 12 minutes. For context, every German winter, when solar is at its minimum, there is near-zero wind energy available for at least five days, or more than 7000 minutes.

This is why the rich world is on track to continue to mostly rely on fossil fuels for decades. The International Energy Agency estimates that even if all current climate promises are delivered, fossil fuels will still constitute two-thirds of the rich world’s energy in 2050.

The developing world sees the hypocrisy, as elegantly formulated by Nigerian Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo: “No one in the world has been able to industrialise using renewable energy”, yet Africa has “been asked to industrialise using renewable energy when everybody else in the world knows that we need gas-powered industries for business”.

Instead of immorally blocking the path for other countries to develop, rich countries need to invest substantially in the innovation needed to ensure that green energy costs drop below fossil fuels. This way, everyone in the world will be able to afford to switch to renewable alternatives. Insisting that the world’s poor live without fossil fuels is virtue signalling that plays with other people’s lives.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/why-we-cant-afford-the-rich-worlds-fossil-fuel-hypocrisy/news-story/ae1f87c3af62a93e7c98d1b980187d75

****************************************************

New climate agreement

Just a week ago it was generally believed that the chances of the United States passing its crucial climate bill were dead, sunk by a Republican Party that does not care and a Democratic senator with a deciding vote who had walked away from negotiations, the West Virginian coal man Joe Manchin.

Then, on Wednesday Australian time, came the shock announcement that Manchin and the Democratic majority leader in the senate, Chuck Schumer, had come to an agreement in negotiations everyone believed had long since failed.

The bill that had once been named the Build Back Better, had been shrunk and rebranded as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

But even in its new form, the IRA would be the single largest emissions’ reduction action ever taken by US congress.

In analysis from the research firm The Rhodium Group, it’s estimated the bill will cut US emissions to 31-44 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030, compared to 24-35 per cent under current policy.

“I am pleased to report that this will be, by far, the biggest climate action in human history,” said one of senate’s climate champions, Brian Schatz of Hawaii.

In simple terms, the climate elements of the bill work by pumping US$370 billion in public funding into climate and energy programs. It includes subsidies to help Americans dump the use of gas in the home and adopt electric vehicles.

Crucially for Manchin, the bill is likely to have a deflationary impact. It does this by pulling more money out of the economy than it injects, by hiking some company taxes and improving public spending on drugs; and by increasing the availability of clean energy.

Critics say that despite its vast scope the bill requires far too little climate action, done far too late. This is true, as it is of all advanced economy climate efforts. And they condemn it for the inclusion of a requirement for the government to hold lease sales for oil and gas exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Either way, the deal should be celebrated, and the world should hope that it survives a vote with the support of another crucial Democratic senator, Kyrsten Sinema, who has declared she may seek changes.

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/good-news-on-climate-is-so-rare-it-should-be-celebrated-20220731-p5b606.html

***************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************



Sidebars

The notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the blog that is reproduced above are not reproduced here. The sidebar for this blog can however be found in my archive of sidebars


Most pictures that I use in the body of the blog should stay up throughout the year. But how long they stay up after that is uncertain. At the end of every year therefore I intend to put up a collection of all pictures used my blogs in that year. That should enable missing pictures to be replaced. The archive of last year's pictures on this blog is therefore now up. Note that the filename of the picture is clickable and clicking will bring the picture up. See here (2021). See also here (2020).



My Home Pages are here (Academic) or here (Personal); My Home page supplement; My Alternative Wikipedia; My Blogroll; Menu of my longer writings; My annual picture page is here; My Recipes;

Email me (John Ray) here.