Green Transition? ExxonMobil Predicts Steady Oil Demand For The Next 25 Years
ExxonMobil produced a report on Monday that anticipated oil demand reaching a “plateau” in 2030 and remaining fairly stable for the next 20 years: A prediction far out of line with political narratives of a “transition to green energy.”
ExxonMobil’s “plateau” of oil demand was calculated at 102.2 million barrels per day, which is roughly what global demand worked out to last year.
The report predicted this equilibrium would be maintained by the developing world dramatically increasing oil consumption while the U.S. and Europe scale back their demand.
The overall vision of the report was a much slower, limited, and realistic “transition” than environmentalist politicians have demanded.
If the report’s projections are correct, the world will still be getting more than half of its energy from fossil fuels by 2050, but emissions will decline by 25 percent thanks to cleaner and more efficient methods of burning those fuels.
“Renewables will play an important role. So will oil and natural gas,” ExxonMobil predicted.
Coal also reportedly has a key role to play despite being one of the fuels most despised by the climate change movement.
The report envisioned oil and gas providing 54 percent of global energy by 2050, followed by “renewables” (wind, solar, and hydropower) at 15 percent, then coal at 13 percent.
The top five energy sources were rounded out with bioenergy at ten percent and nuclear power at six percent.
Bioenergy is, for the most part, plant matter converted into liquid fuel – ethanol and methane derived from the manure of herbivorous animals, for example.
One reason for the growing interest in bioenergy is that it can be combined with coal burning to maintain the energy output of coal with lower emissions.
This is also one reason environmentalists are turning sour on bioenergy, combined with their belief that it releases too much carbon into the atmosphere, driving climate change.
Coal plus bioenergy hitting 23 percent of global power generation in 2050, while oil and gas continue to account for more than half, is not the “energy transition” climate activists had in mind.
ExxonMobil’s prediction for oil demand was notably higher than that of rival BP, which projected demand of just 75 million barrels per day (versus ExxonMobil’s 102 million) in a similar report produced this year.
Both of those projections are far higher than the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) vision of 55 million BPD consumption in a truly climate-sensitive 2050.
However, even ExxonMobil’s bullish forecast is lower than that of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which said oil demand will reach 116 million BPD by 2045.
ExxonMobil analysts were quite insistent that BP got it wrong, and the IEA was simply daydreaming.
The Texas oil company warned politicians and investors that making plans based on less than 102 million BPD consumption – or using raw political power to try to force demand below that level – would result in a global oil shock, potentially increasing the price of crude oil by 400 percent or more.
***************************************************
Stick to Finance, Financial Times; Weather is Not Getting Worse
A recent article in the Financial Times (paywalled) features a discussion between writer Attracta Mooney and Celeste Saulo, the current secretary-general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization. Claims made in the post include that 2023 and 2024 were the hottest years on record, that recent global wildfires and drought in parts of the Mediterranean are caused by climate change, and that extreme weather in general is getting worse. These claims are false. Data undermine and often directly contradict such assertions.
The article, titled “Meteorologist Celeste Saulo: ‘Climate change is not a movie. This is real life’,” is mostly a flowery biographical piece about Saulo, whom the author sat down with to enjoy an insultingly decadent French lunch in Geneva, Switzerland, while they discussed how the rest of us need to cut way back on our standard of living. Writer Mooney begins the piece by discussing how it was hot in Geneva, implying that “almost 30°C” (86°F) is very hot for August. A quick search online shows that while on the high end of the spectrum, it is still within Geneva’s normal range for August; highs in the 80s are not unusual for Geneva as summer nears its end.
Mooney writes “[w]ith wildfires burning in Greece and Turkey, large chunks of the Mediterranean parched as drought spreads across the region, and all just weeks after the world experienced its hottest days on record,” continuing that 2023 “was the hottest on record and 2024 is on course to be even warmer.”
Saulo concurred with Mooney’s framing. Mooney goes further to report that the U.N. secretary-general, Saulo’s boss, agrees that “we need to start adapting to a warming world where wildfires, heatwaves, floods, droughts and other extreme weather events are more intense.”
The problem is, all of this is false, and as a meteorologist Saulo should know this.
Wildfires are certainly not becoming more intense or widespread, for one. Global wildfire tracking done by NASA satellites as well as the European Space Agency show that there has been a gradual decline in global burned area, not an increase.
Drought is likewise not becoming more of a problem, and the region that Mooney chose to highlight, the Mediterranean, is explicitly one which is known for having hot, dry summers. The Mediterranean even has a climate type named after it, the “Mediterranean climate,” which describes a climate with “irregular rainfall with most of the rainfall in winter.”
Also, the United Nations, which employs Saulo, reports with “high confidence” that precipitation has actually increased over the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere at least, and has “low confidence” about negative trends globally, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Drought.
When it comes to the “hottest year on record,” much of that media frenzy was just that – media hype lacking factual basis to make the claim.
There is plenty of evidence, such as results from the carbon-dating of trees from the middle ages recently exposed by retreating glaciers, which points to other periods in relatively recent history being hotter than at present.
Also, a lot of the “record breaking heat” measurements were merely tenths of a degree hotter than previous measurements, which is hardly alarming, and are likely either statistical anomalies resulting from the reanalysis of data put out by flawed climate models or the result of the biased urban heat island effect, as discussed Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example.
Data was also misused; for example, many stories in July 2023 breathlessly claimed that the 3rd and 4th of July were the hottest days of all time based on a “dataset” that was not actually displaying measured temperatures, or data at all but but rather modelled simulations of temperatures. The University of Maine’s Climate Reanalyzer was where the claim originated. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization publicly distanced itself from the claim, explaining that the model output is “not suitable” as real temperature measurements for the purpose of keeping a climate record.
There is in fact any trend of increasingly extreme weather, as Saulo must know, otherwise why would the only evidence she cites for the claim be the alleged “28 disaster events” in the United States which cost “at least $1bn each in 2023.” As a writer for the Financial Times, surely Mooney knows that the costs of disasters are not necessarily evidence of worsening disasters, at all; other factors go into it, like the increasing value of property and the expanding bullseye effect. Climate Realism has pointed this out several times, including here, here, and here.
The juxtaposition throughout the article of the two discussing climate change and policy, including how people need to change the way they eat and take vacations, with frequent breaks to discuss how nice their lunch in prosperous Geneva was, was a bizarre writing choice for a journalist trying to emphasize urgency when it comes to climate action. The Financial Times should stick to what it is known for – financial news and analysis—and leave the climate puff pieces to other outlets, especially if the depths of their climate reporting efforts are to uncritically publish falsehoods.
https://climaterealism.com/2024/08/stick-to-finance-financial-times-weather-is-not-getting-worse/
***************************************************EV driver exposes major problem with repairing an electric car: 'I thought it was a misprint'
An electric car owner has lashed out at the expensive cost to repair a vehicle.
The Victorian panel beater was left stunned after he was quoted $3,000 for a front bumper replacement for his MG EV.
His story comes as mechanics reveal repairing electric vehicles are substantially more expensive than their petrol competitors.
'I thought it was a misprint but no, that's the cost,' the panel beater wrote online.
'I looked for a second-hand bar, no go! Bugger all availability. My last phone call I got very lucky, only one available in Melbourne I could find and it’s the same colour.'
He drove some 500km to collect the bumper, which had some chips in its paint, from a wrecker for $770.
Sydney Hybrid and Electric Cars owner Gerry Marson said replacement and repair costs are indeed high in the industry and predicts the situation will be further exacerbated if cheap EVs from China flood the Australian market.
He said there is no information on where spare parts for the vehicles would come from.
‘It's crazy. The government should be responsible,' he told Yahoo.
'The problem is, they (Chinese EVs) will sell well as people gravitate to these vehicles as they're cheap.'
He said an EV mechanic's job was already difficult as they were required to run diagnostics on sophisticated technological components.
Mr Marson said sourcing specialist mechanics and having to buy repair parts from overseas mean a major failure in an EV could cost between $10,000 and $15,000.
He predicts a large number of EVs will be scrapped when owners are hit with massive mechanic bills on a cheap, older EV cars.
‘As problems start to occur, you cannot get this and you can’t get that. It doesn’t matter whether it’s diesel, petrol, hybrid or EV if you have an engine or software problem. You can’t even change a headlight without software,’ he said.
Mr Marson revealed he recently endured a troubling ordeal with an unnamed Chinese manufacturer who insisted he pay freight costs on warranty parts – additional costs that would be passed onto the customer.
However, he says the cost of all repairs has risen since he started working in the automotive industry, linked to the rising price of technologies for both electric and petrol powered vehicles.
‘EVs are more expensive to repair but overall, even a petrol engine water pump can cost between $600 to $1000,' Mr Marson said.
'That would be $50 in my day, those days are gone. All this modern technology all around us comes at a huge cost.’
Australians with older EVs have been blindsided by the amount of technology they’ve had to replace in their cars.
Many are content with the operation of the internal motor, and the batteries which are expected to wear slightly with use over time.
The Electric Vehicle Council of Australia states the current costs for servicing an EV are about $300 to $400 cheaper than a combustion vehicle per year.
However, when the cars require structural repairs, owners feel the pinch.
One report by American vehicles collision technology and insights firm Mitchell found EVs were nearly 20 per cent more costly to repair following an accident than a petrol or diesel vehicle in the States.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13801317/EV-driver-mechanic-replacement-expensive.html
************************************************Australian Greens plan to drive most landlords out of business
The Greens have their eyes firmly focused on winning over renters at the next election, with a new policy aimed at giving tenants more power in resolving disputes with their landlords.
The Greens have announced plans to establish a National Renters Protection Authority (NRPA) which would only deal with tenancy disputes, including enforcing national minimum standards the party has put forward, covering ventilation, heating, cooling and insulation.
Costed at $200m a year by the parliamentary budget office, based on the Greens rental policies, the NRPA is proposed to have 1,000 staff across the nation “allowing them to investigate rental breaches as well as offering advocacy, advice and education to renters all around the country”.
The Greens say investigators with the proposed body would be able to issue fines of up to $18,780 to real estate agencies found to have breached the rules, as well as on-the-spot fines of up to $3,756. The fines would increase for “serial offenders”.
The agency would take the place of state and territory administrative tribunals, which are often overwhelmed with rental disputes, particularly over bond payments.
With polling showing that a hung parliament will be a likely outcome at the next election, the Greens are looking to hold the balance of power and see one of Australia’s forgotten demographics – its 7 million tenants – as one of the pathways.
The proposed agency would sit as the centrepiece of the Greens’ array of rental policies, which include a two-year rental freeze and ongoing caps of 2% for increases, measures the government is not entertaining as part of its own suite of housing policies.
The minor party also wants the right to guaranteed lease renewals and access to five-year leases, arguing tenants deserve better security when it comes to their rental properties.
The government responded to growing anger from tenants earlier in the year by convening the state and territory leaders for a national cabinet to discuss rental reforms. The result was an agreement to work towards national minimal standards for properties, consistency on reasonable grounds for eviction and limiting rental increases to once a year.
But little has changed and with growing anger, the Greens see an electoral advantage.
The party’s leader, Adam Bandt, said both major parties had abandoned renters, treating them as “second class citizens”.
“Unlimited rent increases should be illegal. Unliveable rentals should be illegal. That’s what a National Renters Protection Authority would achieve,” he said.
“Labor and the Liberals think they can tinker around the edges with a fundamentally broken housing system but renters will punish them at the ballot box.”
The party’s housing spokesperson, Max Chandler-Mather said the nation needed an agency dedicated to renters.
“What’s the point of minimum standards for renters if there’s nobody to call when the landlord or real estate breaks the rules?” he said.
“There will be no more pleading with the landlord to send a plumber, fix the heater or send an electrician – it’s your right to have a livable rental home, and the Greens will make that a reality.”
The housing minister, Clare O’Neil, has said she is “intensely concerned” about Australia’s rental crisis and promised “profound and transformative” investment from the government to increase housing supply.
But the government has not changed its policy positions. Labor, after fierce negotiation with the Greens, which included more immediate funding for social and affordable housing, passed its housing future fund that is touted to build an additional 30,000 homes a year.
Its shared equity plan, help to buy, and the development incentive build-to-rent remain stalled in the Senate, with Labor and the Greens locked in a negotiation impasse.
The Coalition has also withheld support, unless the government agrees to its super for housing policy, another measure Labor has previously ruled out.
On Sunday, Liberal senator Andrew Bragg raised the possibility of withholding GST from the states unless they accelerated domestic housebuilding, which has not previously been raised as one of the Coalition’s policies. Bragg said “everything was under consideration”.
September 01, 2024
Wealthier homeowners nab billions in tax credits for energy efficiency
Upper-income homeowners are scooping up billions of dollars in tax credits for making their residences more energy efficient, while the poor are getting almost nothing under the same Biden administration effort.
That’s according to an analysis by POLITICO’s E&E News of a tax credit program that was expanded under President Joe Biden and is designed to spur homeowners to buy solar panels, insulation materials and other items that can reduce energy bills and home emissions.
The analysis found that the highest-earning 25 percent of households — those with taxable incomes of $100,000 or more — got 66 percent of the tax credits, worth a total of $5.5 billion. Meanwhile, the lowest-earning 25 percent, with taxable incomes below $25,000, received just $32 million.
More than $2 billion went to households earning over $200,000 a year.
The wealth disparity alarms some economists and advocates, raising concerns that the credits are giving taxpayer money to hundreds of thousands of people who don’t need financial help or incentives to buy equipment that saves them substantial money on energy bills.
“These tax credits don’t increase the affordability for families making over $500,000. They can already afford it. And they get lower energy prices,” said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association.
Tax credits reduce dollar for dollar the income tax that individuals and households owe the federal government. The residential energy credits in 2023 cut income taxes — and federal revenue — by a total of $8.4 billion.
The average credit was $2,340, but credits were much larger for people with higher income.
The wealth disparity also intensifies questions about the Biden administration’s unprecedented use of tax incentives as a cornerstone of his climate change policy.
Brookings Institution economist Sanjay Patnaik said the growing costs of the credits and of other federal spending on climate change could turn public opinion against programs that Biden and Congress created or enlarged.
“It’s a lot of money for relatively low emissions reductions,” Patnaik, director of Brookings’ Center on Regulation and Markets, said of the energy tax credits. “It runs the risk of making climate policy less accepted by the public because people will say, This is running up a big bill and is costing much more than expected.”
The Congressional Budget Office projected in 2022 that the energy tax credits would cost $2.4 billion in 2023.
In response to E&E News’ findings, a Treasury Department spokesperson said that “the tax credits are largely benefitting the middle class,” adding that the hundreds of billions of dollars of additional Inflation Reduction Act funding is helping “left behind places.”
Patnaik had a different perspective: “It’s basically people that are pretty wealthy are getting significantly large tax credits for making their home more energy-efficient.”
The Treasury Department said it wants the tax credits to help middle-income families, and highlighted a statistic showing that 47 percent of the recipients in 2023 had taxable income below $100,000. U.S. median household income, which is typically higher than taxable income, was $74,600 in 2022.
“Our broad goal is to make sure that middle-class and working-class Americans throughout the country are aware of these credits,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told reporters Aug. 7.
But Treasury’s analysis omits information showing that higher-income households dominated the energy tax credits.
People with income below $100,000 accounted for 76 percent of all federal taxpayers in 2023. Yet they received only 34 percent of the energy tax credits — $2.9 billion in total, according to an E&E News analysis that Treasury did not dispute.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/biden-energy-tax-credits-homeowners-00174019
**************************************************How Trump Can Win on Energy: Zero Energy Poverty
As vice president, Harris has backed so-called net zero, which means offsetting every iota of manmade greenhouse gases. Walz, as governor, has pushed one of the most aggressive net-zero policies in America, mandating no carbon emissions in Minnesota by 2040.
This promise is economic suicide.
Not only is it unachievable, but ramping up unreliable and costly energy sources like wind and solar while eliminating reliable and affordable options like natural gas and nuclear power is disastrous.
It inevitably means a dramatic and ongoing drop in our standard of living—a drop that’s already begun. Thanks to net zero, Americans are already paying more on utility bills and everyday goods, even as more homes and businesses suffer rolling blackouts that are getting worse.
As the Republican ticket, Donald Trump and JD Vance should fight this madness—but they have to be smart. Republicans have never effectively responded to net zero, which has a positive sound that appeals to Americans. People will only rally around something equally (or ideally more) inspiring. And no, simply praising fossil fuels won’t cut it.
Here’s a real winning message: zero energy poverty.
Zero energy poverty casts a powerful vision, one that can be realized by unleashing our vast natural resources. Such resources can deliver a future in which no one would struggle to afford utility bills.
No one would have to choose between filling up their car and feeding their family or getting medical care. Everyone would benefit from better jobs, higher wages, better health, and a new era of innovation. With a vision like that, no one could oppose zero energy poverty.
Why might this rallying cry work? To start, it connects environmental and energy policy to people’s true priorities.
While 70% of Americans support tackling climate change, just 2% say it’s the most important issue facing the country, according to Gallup. Eighteen times as many Americans list the economy as their top concern, for good reason.
After years of soaring inflation and slow-to-nonexistent wage growth, families are legitimately worried about getting poorer, and many are. A stunning 8 out of 10 people now think their children’s lives will be worse than their own. Moving to eliminate energy poverty can help reverse this dispiriting pessimism, ushering in a new era of optimism born of greater opportunity.
Zero energy poverty also highlights that net zero is the path to poverty unless you’re politically well-connected—see the massive subsidies that the Biden-Harris administration is throwing at green companies.
Net zero requires curtailing freedom and massively growing government, as evidenced by bans on gas-powered cars, natural gas appliances, and the forced closure of reliable electricity plants—all of which are driving widespread economic pain.
Americans’ suffering will worsen as ham-fisted policies force continued emissions cuts without regard to economic or environmental reality. If you want a family budget you can’t balance, or if you’d rather risk death from frostbite or heat stroke when the power goes out, net zero is for you.
And while net zero’s proponents talk a big game about good-paying jobs and economic growth, their record is one of failure. Their policies lead to economywide deindustrialization—just ask Europe.
Like net zero, the goal of zero energy poverty is aspirational. Unlike net zero, it’s achievable and will improve lives.
It’s a springboard for policies that tap America’s boundless energy potential, yielding tangible benefits like lower utility bills and cheaper food, which requires energy to grow and transport. Fully tapping American energy can also make housing more affordable and durable and healthcare more innovative and accessible.
And yes, zero energy poverty is the best path to making the environment cleaner since it calls for policies that unleash emission-lowering innovation without undermining the economy. Zero energy poverty means an easier everyday existence, greater wealth, better health, and a more expansive and inclusive American dream.
Americans’ quality of life depends on energy—affordable, abundant, reliable energy. The promise of zero energy poverty provides a way to remind society of this fact, fostering greater support for essential, on-demand energy sources like oil, natural gas, and nuclear.
These energy sources aren’t poisons to be avoided, as net zero implies. They’re a critical tool for human progress—a tool that America must continue to use for the betterment of all.
One of the best things Donald Trump can do is promise to replace the Harris-Walz climate agenda with a real pathway to “zero energy poverty.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/31/how-trump-can-win-on-energy-zero-energy-poverty/
*********************************************Exposing the Waste in Climate Solutions
The report “Funding Failure” from Oil Change International pushes the familiar narrative that financial institutions are betraying climate goals by continuing to fund fossil fuel projects.
It highlights the billions of dollars that banks funnel into the fossil fuel industry, suggesting that this funding undermines efforts to combat climate change.
However, this narrative crumbles when you examine the broader context and the actual spending priorities.
In 2023, global banks provided around $700 billion in financing to the fossil fuel sector. While this might sound like a staggering figure, it’s relatively modest when compared to the U.S. defense budget, which exceeded $850 billion in the same year.
This comparison reveals that fossil fuel financing, far from being the primary obstacle to addressing climate change, is dwarfed by other spending priorities. U.S. healthcare spending was approximately $4.3 trillion in 2022—again, a figure that puts the fossil fuel financing into perspective.
Even social programs, with the U.S. spending over $1.2 trillion on Social Security alone in 2023, dwarf the financial flows for global fossil fuels.
When you consider these numbers, the obsession with fossil fuel divestment starts to seem less like a rational policy and more like an ideological crusade.
This misplaced priority is further highlighted when we examine the wasteful spending on so-called “climate solutions” that are both unproven and impractical.
The report sheds light on this issue, revealing that an astonishing $2 trillion has been poured into unproven climate technologies.
These include the much-touted carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fossil hydrogen (also known as blue hydrogen), both of which are emblematic of the broader waste and inefficiency that plague the current climate policy landscape.
Carbon capture involves capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from sources like power plants or industrial facilities before they enter the atmosphere.
The captured CO2 is then stored underground or used in other processes. Despite the hype, this technology is expensive, energy-intensive, and has yet to prove scalable or economically viable.
The irony is that while trillions are spent trying to capture CO2 from fossil fuels, the world continues to rely on these same fossil fuels for energy, and CCS does little to change that reality.
https://principia-scientific.com/exposing-the-waste-in-climate-solutions/
*************************************************Australia: "In an attempt to go green, we are losing our green"
Catriona Rowntree has slammed the Victorian government over “secretive” plans to build a massive renewable energy battery project next to her farm southwest of Melbourne.
The Getaway presenter, 53, is furious about the proposal to build batteries and solar panels on 770 hectares of land in Little River at the base of the You Yangs Regional Park, just outside Geelong, saying locals were blindsided by the plans and fear it poses a fire risk.
“You are about to learn what many of us across the state of Victoria are being blindsided with — that is in an attempt to go green, we are losing our green,” she told followers on Instagram ahead of an appearance on the ABC.
Rowntree later told the broadcaster the state government was trying to “sneak through” the proposal “and the council did not know”.
“I’m feeling like the canary in the coal mine,” she told ABC Melbourne radio host Raf Epstein. “If you don’t know something’s happening, how can you object? That’s what happened to us.”
ACEnergy acquired the land in 2023 to build the Little River Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), with the development application currently being considered by Victorian Department of Transport and Planning.
The 350MW/700MWh lithium battery farm would be one of the state’s largest if it goes ahead and “support Victoria’s clean energy transition”.
“By providing a reliable and flexible storage solution, it will help balance supply and demand, integrating more renewable energy into the grid and reducing reliance on fossil fuels,” ACEnergy states on its website.
Rowntree, a long-time presenter on the Channel 9 travel program, spoke at Tuesday night’s Geelong Council meeting to voice her concerns about the Sandy Creek Road project, saying she had only found out through press reports days earlier.
“It is currently on prime agricultural land and historically, this property in a fire corridor,” she said, the Geelong Advertiser reported.
She noted fatal bushfires had ripped through the area in 1969 and suggested other sites in the area may be more suitable. “As you know, this is a high wind area, and opposite the You Yangs Park 500m away,” she said.
At the meeting, Geelong Mayor Trent Sullivan agreed that the community had been caught “unaware”.
“Whether it’s a battery [or a] a waste-to-energy incinerator, things that have been tried to, I dare say, be snuck through by the state government, the community must be made aware of it,” he said.
A decision on the project is expected by the end of the year and construction would begin in 2025.
Cr Sullivan said on Thursday the council had written to the state government to request and extension of the community consultation period, which ends on September 7, by three weeks.
***************************************
All my main blogs below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************