Greenie Watch by John Ray -- backup

Climate change could be REDUCING the likelihood of tropical cyclones: Study shows frequency decreased by about 13% in the 20th century

Climate change appears to be reducing the likelihood of tropical cyclones across the world, researchers suggest. They found that the annual number of such storms decreased by about 13 per cent during the 20th century, compared with the period between 1850 and 1900.

For most tropical cyclone basins, this decline has accelerated since the 1950s, which the authors of the new study suggest is mainly because of a weakening of tropical atmospheric circulation. It supports the theory that climate change leads to a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones, they said.

However, the University of Melbourne-led experts warned that frequency is just one factor in the dangers tropical cyclones pose. They did not study changes in intensity or location.

The researchers said it was also not clear how cyclones change under human emissions because a warming ocean is expected to intensify storms, while some changes in atmospheric circulation are thought to prevent storm formation.

As their name suggests, tropical cyclones have long been characterised by the fact that they form almost exclusively over seas located at low-latitudes.

Key to these storms are warm sea surface temperatures of at least 81°F (27°C) and converging low-level winds that force air to rise and form storm clouds.

As long as the burgeoning system has enough distance from the equator, planetary spin will interact with the flow of moist rising air, causing it to rotate cyclonically.

And just as cyclones do not form too close to the equator, their range is bounded at higher latitudes by the jet streams, which have long confined them to the tropics.

Providing historical context to the frequency of cyclones is challenging because the observational record is not complete, especially before 1950, so the experts used a combination of past records and modelling.

Savin Chand and colleagues at the Federation University Australia discovered declining trends in the annual number of tropical cyclones since 1850 at both global and regional scales.

The only exception to this trend is the North Atlantic basin, where the number of tropical cyclones has increased over recent decades.

The study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10957801/Climate-change-reducing-likelihood-tropical-cyclones.html

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

The SEC Should Not Be Setting Corporate Climate Policy

This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will take the next step in demanding that businesses disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and other climate-related information. The SEC’s proposed rule claims to adopt an investor-led approach to climate issues. By mandating the release of climate-related information, the rule would allow investors to take the driver’s seat in urging businesses to respond to climate change and thus enhance their long-term value—or so the theory goes.

But the theory is wrong. To see why it is important to set the record straight. The SEC claims the rule will help investors do something they cannot do now: obtain climate-related information from businesses. But investors are already free to demand such information and to invest only in companies that provide it.

In fact, the rule would bar companies from entering public capital markets unless they make climate disclosures, thereby stopping retail investors from investing in companies that decline to make climate disclosures. (Wealthy accredited investors, who operate outside the public markets, would still be able to invest in such companies.) In other words, the rule would limit the options of the many retail investors who do not want climate disclosures.

There are many reasons not to want them. One is their staggering cost. By the Commission’s own estimates, the proposal would increase the cost of yearly corporate disclosures more than all previous SEC rules combined. This extraordinary burden would drive companies away from public markets; companies would wait to go public, relying in the interim on private funds and accredited investors who (instead of retail investors) would capture the benefits of successful companies’ early-stage growth. Companies that must bear the rule’s costs would pass them on in the form of lower returns to investors and higher prices for consumers at a time when Americans can ill afford either.

But the rule would cause damage far beyond the Commission’s estimates. It would require many companies to disclose not just their greenhouse gas emissions but also those of their suppliers and customers, many of which are small businesses. Public companies would have no choice but to pressure their suppliers and customers to track and pass along their emissions data. This would be impossible for small businesses, which lack access to high-priced environmental consultants or economies of scale in reporting. The harm to small businesses abandoned by the larger economy does not feature in the proposed rule.

Also unassessed in the rule is the harm done to communities that may be deemed “climate-exposed,” or subject to increased risk of severe weather years or decades from now. The rule requires companies to disclose potential risks to facilities in such regions. Rather than raise red flags for investors, many companies would simply abandon these regions entirely. Widespread unemployment, with the accompanying blight all too familiar to Rust Belt towns, will take hold in these places as old employers leave and new employers refuse to move in for fear of tainting their balance sheets. The Commission admits that companies may avoid certain regions in response to its rule but refuses to predict the cost, financial or human, of that change.

Investors should greet the rule skeptically for another reason: it would sidetrack companies from attending to their core mission of producing the vital goods and services that make American life the envy of the world. The disclosure regime Congress enacted in the 1930s is straightforward. Company boards and management may run their businesses as they see fit; the securities laws require simply that they disclose to investors the opportunities and obstacles that may impact their bottom line. This approach, sanctioned by the Supreme Court, is known as the “materiality” standard. But the rule would chart a different course, requiring all companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and much else besides—even when that information does not affect risks and returns.

The effect of these disclosures is easy to predict. No one likes to look like a bad apple. Even companies whose emissions are immaterial will feel pressure to lower them by shutting down older facilities, installing costly emission-control technology, or discontinuing products and services. The rule would effectively divert corporate resources toward the pursuit of aggressive climate policies, at the expense of core missions such as growing food, developing new medicines, or fixing our crumbling supply chains.

Nowhere is this co-opting clearer than in the astounding requirement to disclose how often a company’s board speaks privately about climate-related risks. This provision, a first in this country, would hijack companies’ most sensitive deliberations and give the SEC a seat in corporate boardrooms across America. You may wonder how a provision compelling speech about speech could pass muster under the First Amendment. It’s a good question. But even if courts strike it down, that the SEC would even propose this provision tells us all we need to know about the agency’s approach to rulemaking.

Of course, some Americans would celebrate the deployment of corporate America against climate change through a disclosure-based regime. That policy has its advocates in Congress. But so far, they have not convinced the American people that it is the right way to go, which is why lawmakers have already refused to enact that policy. The SEC has no business setting a climate policy that the people’s representatives in Congress have rejected.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/sec-should-not-be-setting-corporate-climate-policy-203086

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

UK: Fracking could restart in weeks as crunch report into reopening drill sites due in days

A British Geological Survey paper examining the safety of drilling for energy is expected on Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng’s desk.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng could give the greenlight to restart fracking within weeks

He said he would “consider the next steps” — but insisted he would only give it the go-ahead if locals backed it

In a speech yesterday he vowed Britain should “use all the tools at our disposal to ensure our energy security”.

And he said that when Russian tanks rolled into Eastern Ukraine it focused minds on to generating “the fossil fuels we need here at home”.

Mr Kwarteng said: “It’s an imperative, it’s not a mere option. We have always been clear that shale gas could be part of our future energy mix.

“But we need to be led by the science and above all we need to have the ongoing support of local communities.”

Green campaigners say Britain should not be digging for more dirty and polluting fossil fuels, which are destroying the planet.

But those in favour of fracking, which was suspended in 2019, welcomed the news.

Ex-Brexit chief Lord Frost said: “The decision about fracking can’t be delegated to scientists.

“Ministers have to make their minds up, on the basis of scientific advice, but also broader factors like energy security and whether people can afford their energy bills.

“The Government has to take a lead and do the right thing — which is to resume fracking.”

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18986256/fracking-greenlight-kwasi-kwarteng/

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

Energy crisis won’t be solved by wind and sun

Nigerian Vice-President Yemi Osinbajo recently lambasted the rich West for its hypocrisy on energy policy. Writing in The Economist, he declared “rich countries, especially in Europe, have repeatedly called for African states to use only renewable power sources”.

Objecting to the patronising efforts of Westerners to prod Nigerians into “leapfrogging” over fossil fuels into wind and solar, Osinbajo points out that a moratorium on fossil fuel sentences Nigeria to poverty. “Though solar will provide most of our power in the future, we still need natural gas for baseload power.”

Osinbajo is right with regard to the African continent, but rich Westerners are hypocritical at home as well. Advocates of new-generation renewables will often argue that we must choose wind or solar – or submit to the ravages of a changing climate.

But this is a false choice. Some European countries get more than 90 per cent of their electricity from low carbon dioxide sources, such as France (nuclear energy) and Norway (hydropower). Yet no country gets most of their electricity from wind or solar.

In fact, the percentage of the world’s electricity that comes from clean sources has remained stagnant since the 1980s. Although there has been a boom in investment in wind and solar, there has been a lack of investment in nuclear. When nuclear plants shut down, coal-powered plants tend to replace them. Unfortunately, this lack of investment in nuclear has cancelled out the reductions in CO2 emissions made by new-generation renewables. In 1985, 35 per cent of the world’s electricity came from low-CO2 sources; by last year it was just 38.26 per cent.

One of the greatest lies told about climate change is that solving the problem is simply a matter of willpower. If only governments around the world would listen to Greta Thunberg and Simon Holmes a Court, and install solar panels and wind turbines at a faster rate, then temperatures would stabilise. Unfortunately, the problem of climate change is not simply a matter of goodwill. If it were, the Germans would not be reopening their mothballed coal-fired power plants after pledging to be coal-free by 2030.

The Dutch and the Austrians, similarly, would not be following the Germans in reopening their coal-fired plants as well, a week after Russia halted gas deliveries via the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

“The cabinet has decided to immediately withdraw the restriction on production for coal-fired power stations from 2002 to 2024,” Dutch Climate and Energy Minister Rob Jetten told media.

“The situation is serious,” said German Economic Affairs and Climate Action Minister Robert Habeck. “It is obviously Putin’s strategy to upset us, to drive prices upwards and to divide us … We won’t allow this to happen.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that one of the biggest catastrophes of modern geopolitics has been Europe’s entanglement with Russia over energy. During the past five years, while the West was busy taking policy advice from a teenager, Russia was at work fracking and drilling for oil.

Back home in Australia, our politicians persist with the fanciful notion that an entire country’s electricity grid can be powered by wind turbines and solar panels.

On June 16, Andrew Wilkie tweeted: “While the Aus Govt’s target to cut emissions by 43% by 2030 is a step forward, it’s still not good enough. We need a 75% reduction by 2030 & net-zero by 2035. The only way to do this is to quickly phase out coal, gas & oil & fast-track to 100% renewables.”

When Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was asked by Nine journalist Chris Uhlmann about whether the solution to Australia’s recent energy crisis (during which the Australian Energy Market Operator suspended the electricity market to ensure supply) was to invest in the continued maintenance of our coal-fired plants, Bowen fired off an angrily defensive reply. Yet just a week later, emergency powers were invoked to block the export of coal in the event of such a crisis happening again.

In response to our recent power crisis, environmentalists at home have called for a blockage on gas exports, a gas export tax and increased government subsidies for battery storage technologies. Yet these are simply Band-Aid solutions. To ensure energy security, Australia needs to extract more gas, invest in and maintain our existing coal-fired power plants, and think seriously about a long-term transition to nuclear energy.

While nuclear energy is often dismissed as being too costly, the question is: compared with what? The battery storage required to power the whole of Australia has been estimated to cost $6.5 trillion. If this is a cost-effective solution, then God help us all.

An inconvenient truth is that the push for wind and solar may have other motivations than simply concern about climate change.

Last year, The Economist constructed a portfolio of companies that would benefit from the world’s energy transition and estimated that these companies had a total market value of $US3.7 trillion. Tracking these companies’ economic performance, it found that since the start of 2020, they had performed twice as well as the S&P 500, with the “greenest 25% of firms (seeing) their share prices rise by 110%”. But the problem is, according to The Economist, that 30 per cent of these companies do not yet turn a profit.

Just as the cryptocurrency bubble has burst this year, the new-generation renewable energy bubble is likely to burst in the foreseeable future. While big money has piled into the push to transition energy – and this investor exuberance has led to increased pressure on politicians to “transition faster” – the real world presents obstacles in the form of physics and thugs such as Vladimir Putin.

When Putin continues to use energy as a weapon against Europeans, a Nigerian vice-president calls out the hypocrisy of Western leaders, and when countries such as Australia are threatened by blackouts, more people will start to see through the wind and solar hype. The question is, will Australian politicians continue living in a fantasy or will they have the courage to face up to reality?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/energy-crisis-wont-be-solved-bywind-and-sun/news-story/945ffa07c966f84ba4fe79c89852c06f

Climate pledges abandoned as Putin sparks global coal crunch

It has been a striking reversal of commitments. Just seven months ago world leaders convened in Glasgow and decided to “phase-down” coal, marking a landmark agreement in the push to tackle climate change. Now, officials and power company bosses are grappling with the opposite challenge: where can they get more of it?

Countries from the UK to China and the Netherlands are scrambling for supplies of the fossil fuel to help keep the lights on this winter as Russia’s war on Ukraine tightens the squeeze on global energy markets. For the first time, the prospect of Russian gas to Europe being cut off is being taken seriously.

Yet after years of being told to shut mines in favour of more environmentally friendly energy sources, coal is in short supply globally.

Coal prices in Europe hit an all-time high of $430 (£350) per tonne in May, about four times higher than long term averages. There is little sign of cooling, with Russian imports set to be choked off by sanctions and rival exporters beset by their own challenges.

It offers little relief for households around the world stuck with high household energy bills, as the backsliding towards coal, albeit temporary, exposes further fragilities in the global energy system.

“If you want extra coal, you’re going to have to pay a lot,” says Steve Hulton, coal expert at Rystad Energy. “If you are paying a lot for your coal, and gas is incredibly expensive, then expect power prices to be really high. That's going to hurt everyone.”

Efforts to push coal to the sidelines have intensified in recent years, with politicians, investors and banks trying to clamp down on coal-fired power stations which account for about 30pc of the energy sector’s emissions.

The UK has pledged to stop using coal in power stations by 2024, while China last year said it would stop funding overseas coal projects. Yet demand has remained stubbornly high: expensive gas prices since last summer, due to shortages, have pushed many to coal.

Global power generation from coal jumped to an all-time high of 10,350 terawatt-hours in 2021, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), generating about 36pc of global electricity. With supply restricted by the pullback in investment, benchmark Australian thermal coal hit an all-time high of $261.11 on January 28.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has added to the pressure, as traders cope with disruption and brace for loss of supply from one of the world’s biggest coal and gas exporters, due to sanctions or retaliation to them.

Last week state-owned Gazprom restricted gas sent through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany. It had already cut off supplies to the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Poland and Bulgaria after they refused to meet demands to pay in roubles.

Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s executive director, warned that Russia was using gas supplies to gain leverage over Europe, and said he wouldn’t rule out a total cut off. Europe “needs contingency plans” for that scenario, he added.

Using coal instead of gas features heavily so far in those contingency plans, with renewable power not yet able to pick up the slack. The UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Italy are all turning to coal-fired power to help provide supplies this winter.

Kwasi Kwarteng, the UK’s business secretary, wrote to coal plant owners EDF, Uniper and Drax last month urging them to stay open for back-up supply. Coal-fired power generation in Germany is already about 20pc higher year-on-year, according to Rystad Energy. Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister, from the Green Party, has described the situation as “bitter”.

Some plants in Europe use a particularly dirty, domestically produced form of coal, called lignite. Others need cleaner, less sulphurous, hard fuel, which has typically been heavily sourced from Russia. Many have continued to tap that source despite the war.

Russian coal exports are at record levels, from 9.8m tonnes in January to 13.6m tonnes in May and are on course for 13.2m tonnes this month. While more is going to China and India, imports into Europe have also been “unusually high” according to one senior industry source. The figures suggest stockpiling ahead of an EU ban on Russian coal imports in August.

They will still need more.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/25/climate-pledges-abandoned-putin-sparks-global-coal-crunch/?mc_cid=ea7c58d296&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Boris Johnson forced to slash Net Zero targets in bid to tackle cost of living crisis

Boris Johnson has slashed his net-zero targets in a bid to tackle the cost of living crunch – by reducing the amount of biofuel produced in the UK.

The Prime Minister has hit the brakes in the push for green fuel, citing concerns that the drive may contribute to spiralling inflation.

Biofuel requires wheat and maize – land that Mr Johnson believes could be better used for food production to combat soaring prices. Land used globally to grow crops for the UK biofuel market could feed 3.5 million people if it was converted to food production.

The PM will call on G7 leaders to review their biofuel use, arguing that it could help mitigate the global food crisis and supply chain issues exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Mr Johnson said: ‘While Vladimir Putin continues his futile and unprovoked war in Ukraine and cravenly blockades millions of tonnes of grain, the world’s poorest people are inching closer to starvation.

He added: ‘From emergency food aid to reviewing our own biofuel use, the UK is playing its part to address this pernicious global crisis.’

The push for green fuel was one of the key pillars of the government’s net zero ambitions but now it is set to push for the amount of biofuel used globally to be cut by 10 per cent at Sunday’s G7 summit.

Government sources have stressed that the primary purpose of the Prime Minister’s review is to ensure people in poor countries have access to grain.

Britain sources more than 20 per cent of the ethanol used to create its biofuel from Ukraine. Land used globally to grow crops for the UK biofuel market could feed 3.5 million people if it was converted to food.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10948103/Boris-Johnson-hits-brakes-biofuel-slashes-net-zero-targets-tackle-cost-living.html?mc_cid=ea7c58d296&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Europe’s Search for Natural Gas Runs Up Against Climate Goals

Europe’s scramble to replace Russian natural gas has set in motion plans for new gas production and infrastructure world-wide that critics say risk throwing the world off track in meeting the Paris accord’s climate targets.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe is moving quickly to set up new import terminals for liquefied natural gas from elsewhere. U.S. producers are expanding their export facilities as Europe’s thirst for gas adds to already-strong Asian demand. Such infrastructure can take years to build and is usually predicated on lifespans lasting decades. European utilities, meanwhile, are negotiating long-term supply deals with gas exporters in the U.S., the Middle East and Africa.

Both moves threaten to lock Europe into a new dependency on non-Russian gas at a time when the West has promised to start pivoting from hydrocarbons to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists say are causing the earth to warm.

“This push for gas is much, much bigger than replacing Russian gas,” said Bill Hare, chief executive of Climate Analytics, a nonpartisan climate-science group. “That risks a lock-in of very high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.”

Democratic members of Congress including Senators Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) and lawmakers from the European Parliament wrote in a joint letter last month that “further expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in the United States and Europe is destined to set us back during a moment when we should be doing everything within our power to avert climate catastrophe.”

For many capitals, the urgent need to find enough supplies to replace Russian gas is outweighing longer-term goals to slash emissions. Gas from Russia, Europe’s biggest supplier, heats homes and powers factories across the continent.

European officials have emphasized gas as a transitional fuel: not ideal, but better than higher-emitting fuels such as coal. Burning natural gas produces around half the carbon dioxide of coal. The European Union is aiming to cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 14% by 2030 compared with 2020 by massively expanding wind and solar power and using energy more efficiently.

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria have all said they are now preparing to burn more coal in the next few years after Russia throttled gas supplies to the continent last week. And Europe is doubling down on gas from other parts of the world.

Plans for more than 20 liquefied natural gas import projects have been announced, relaunched or sped up across Europe since Russia invaded Ukraine, according to a recent analysis by FTI Consulting. Analysts said those projects have the potential to contribute an additional 128 billion cubic meters in natural-gas import capacity over the coming years, roughly the equivalent of 83% of the EU’s total 2021 imports from Russia.

Germany, which didn’t have any LNG import terminals before the war in Ukraine began, is taking some of the most aggressive steps to develop new infrastructure. The German government recently passed legislation to fast-track LNG developments, and pledged 2.94 billion euros, equivalent to about $3.09 billion, to put several floating terminals into operation.

The French utility Engie SA in May announced a 15-year contract to buy LNG from an export facility under construction in Brownsville, Texas. That came a year-and-a-half after the company pulled out of talks to buy gas from the project under pressure from environmentalists and the French government. It also recently struck a deal with Cheniere Energy Inc. for increased gas deliveries that would continue beyond 2040. A separate 15-year deal between Cheniere and Norway’s Equinor ASA was announced earlier this month, with deliveries to begin in 2026.

European officials and industry executives say that new LNG import terminals and other gas infrastructure can eventually be converted to handle hydrogen, a clean-burning fuel that can be produced using renewable energy. That, backers say, means building the infrastructure now doesn’t necessarily lock the continent into using more gas for years to come.

“We are firm believers that natural gas and LNG, done the right way, is an enabling partner to renewables,” said Anatol Feygin, chief commercial officer of Cheniere, which owns LNG export facilities in Texas and Louisiana. “We think that’ll be the case for decades to come.”

European officials are also fanning out to ask for gas from countries with untapped reserves. Critics say that could encourage production that might otherwise never get developed.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz traveled to Senegal in May and said his government was interested in helping the West African nation develop its offshore natural gas reserves. Italian officials have signed deals with Angola and Congo to boost gas supplies. The EU announced plans to work with Israel and Egypt to increase exports of natural gas to the bloc.

Climate scientists warn that the world has little leeway to produce and burn more gas while at the same time complying with the Paris accord. Most of the world’s countries have agreed to the deal, which calls for governments to collectively reduce emissions to levels that scientists hope will limit warming to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The latest United Nations climate-science report estimates that global gas use in electricity and heating should fall 10% by 2030 compared with 2020 and 45% by 2050 to meet the 1.5-degree target.

LNG poses a double challenge. It is natural gas that has been supercooled so it can be transported as a liquid across long distances. It is turned back into a gas after it arrives at LNG import facilities. Tankers that transport it can be big emitters of methane—a powerful greenhouse gas—adding to overall emissions related to the fuel.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-search-for-natural-gas-runs-up-against-climate-goals-11656144535?mc_cid=ea7c58d296&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Australia: AgForce chief Michael Guerin questions climate science, blasts NZ pledge to cut farm emissions

The head of Queensland's peak rural lobby group AgForce says the science is not settled on climate change as he criticises New Zealand's plan to reduce agricultural emissions.

New Zealand farmers have worked with government on a proposed farm-level levy system as an alternative to the industry being included in the country's emissions trading scheme.

Queensland AgForce chief executive Michael Guerin said he was "horrified" by the plan.

"One of the things I believe very strongly, having spent a lot of time working with scientists — and I'm not a scientist — but the belief I have is that the science is never settled," he said.

"By its very definition it's a process of continuous learning, so climate change is real [but] it's coming from a number of sources, the scientists tell us.

"There are a lot of examples where things have been decided in the past where [they have] changed their mind with updated science."

He said his personal views on climate change did not affect the work he did in his role representing the state's farmers.

"What I do is represent now about 6,500 members, and through a committee process represent their collective views into the core issues," he said.

"There are various views about where climate change comes from, but there's an unanimous view that we want to work collaboratively and productively with science and with government in some of these issues."

Carbon sequestration in cattle

Mr Guerin said agriculture was the only industry in Australia that had made a tangible reduction in net emissions since 1995, but he acknowledged there was more to do.

"It's a powerfully positive story that can be accelerated through incentives, rather than slowed up through taxes," he said.

He said grazing animals contributed to carbon sequestration and a new project, AgCarE (Agriculture, Carbon and the Environment), demonstrated that much of Queensland's cattle industry was positive sequesters.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/agforce-chief-michael-guerin-questions-climate-science-blasts-nz-pledge-to-cut-farm-emissions/ar-AAYHKF1

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Climate Change Reconsidered

National Public Radio (NPR) recently ran an article discussing the results of a poll it conducted claiming that Americans are suffering from extreme weather events due to climate change. Although because of the mainstream media’s claims the public may be under the impression that every weather event is due to climate change, this impression is wrong. Data demonstrate no trend of increasing extreme weather events, mainstream media assertions to the contrary. The public, most of which does experience one or more instances of extreme weather each year, is being misled to believe climate change is making weather worse. Polls are no replacement for facts in science, and science has measured little if any climate change impact on weather.

An NPR article titled “You’ve likely been affected by climate change. Your long-term finances might be, too,” written by NPR “Science Desk” reporter Rebecca Hersher, discusses the results of a recent poll conducted by NPR. NPR sampled Americans views concerning about their perception of weather events from the last five years.

“More than three-quarters of adults in the United States say they have experienced extreme weather in the last five years, including hurricanes, wildfires, floods and heat waves, the survey found,” Hersher writes “And most people who suffer major weather damage or financial problems do not receive money from the federal government.”

Setting aside the issue of how expensive weather damage to homes and businesses can be, which Climate Realism has previously explained cannot be blamed on climate change (here, here, and here, for example), the connection between incidences of extreme weather and climate change that NPR is trying to make lacks a basis measurable evidence.

It is not surprising at all that people living across a large country composed of many ecoregions experience a wide variety of weather conditions. Every region experiences extreme weather at one time of another, and some place somewhere will most likely be experiencing some form of extreme weather at any given time. Extreme weather events are common throughout all of history and are entirely natural in origin. What is unusual are extended periods of extreme weather absences, like the record low in tornadoes in 2018, 2020, and 2021 as detailed by Climate Realism here. Another example is the absence of strong hurricane landfalls from 2005 to 2017—nearly 12 years without a Category 3 or greater hurricane in the United States

NPR’s article also says that “[p]eople who experience extreme weather are also more likely to consider climate change a crisis or major problem.” A group of peoples beliefs about the causes of a particular extreme weather event are not evidence of a causal connection, except in their own mind—in this case, an idea likely fostered by years of alarmist, inaccurate corporate media reports asserting that the two are linked. What the poll does seem to be measuring is the unscientific impact of climate alarmist propaganda on Americans. When every weather event is breathlessly blamed on climate change in the media, as Climate Realism constantly reports and refutes, is it any wonder?

Other polls that incorporate topics besides climate change show a less alarming picture. Americans consistently rank climate change as pretty low on the concern-totem-poll, for example see this recent Gallup survey about American environmental concerns discussed at Climate Realism, here. In that poll, drinking water pollution was ranked as Americans’ top concern, while climate change or global warming ranked dead last.

Continuing to beat the drum, NPR says “[t]he results underscore how ubiquitous and dangerous climate change is for Americans, as the hottest part of the year gets underway, and people across the country gird themselves for another year of severe hurricanes, floods, fires, and heat waves.”

Regarding heat waves, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s U.S. Climate Reference Network data do not show a trend of increasing maximum temperature anomalies, seen in the figure below. Even as the media reports on high temperatures in parts of the Midwest, the Northeast and Northwest coasts recently experienced unusually cold springs, as discussed at Climate Realism here, and here.

The American public may believe that their weather woes are caused by the nebulous specter of climate change, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Extreme weather is natural and should be expected and prepared for. NPR and the legacy media should be ashamed of themselves for pushing polling data as some kind of proof of the impact of climate change. What they actually show is that their misleading coverage of weather is having a negative impact on Americans’ understanding of the natural world and the present known facts about climate change.

https://climaterealism.com/2022/06/npr-public-opinion-polls-arent-proof-of-climate-change/

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

CO2 Coalition files amicus brief in 5th Circuit Court

CO2 Coalition Tells Court Carbon Regulation “Scientifically Invalid”

President Biden’s Social Cost of Carbon rule is “scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States,” according to a court brief by two physics professors at Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the CO2 Coalition.

Filed today with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the amicus curie brief said, “There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits.” It asked that the rule be enjoined from further use pending outcome of a hearing by a trial court.

The lawsuit before the appeals court — the State of Louisiana versus Biden — seeks to stop the use of “temporary rules” that are implemented by presidential order. The Biden administration’s SCC rule directs regulators to include the purported projected “global cost” of every ton of carbon dioxide emissions from a wide array of projects where federal funding or approvals are needed, from transportation, to housing, to energy and infrastructure.

The academicians named in the brief are Dr. William Happer, chairman of the CO2 Coalition and professor emeritus of Princeton University’s Department of Physics; and Dr. Richard S. Linden, professor emeritus in the MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences and a CO2 Coalition member and past chairman.

The brief says that a district court’s preliminary injunction should be reinstated because the technical document supporting the SCC and President Biden’s executive order imposing the regulation “are scientifically invalid and will be disastrous for the poor people worldwide, future generations and the United States.”

“Reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, government opinion, peer review or manipulated data,” says the brief. The brief says the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted essentially the CO2 Coalition’s view of what constitutes valid science.

However, the brief notes, predictions supporting an SCC — particularly climate forecasts generated by computer models — have regularly failed the test of real-world observation. Meanwhile, the brief says, supporters promote an SCC on the basis of claims of a consensus, the favoring of governmental opinion over scientific challenge, endorsements by peers, the manipulation of some data and the omission of other information.

A glaring omission in the administration’s proposed regulation are the benefits of carbon dioxide and of the fossil fuels whose burning in the generation of electricity and industrial processes emit the gas.

“There is overwhelming scientific evidence that fossil fuels and CO2 provide enormous social benefits for the poor, people worldwide, future generations and the United States, and therefore it would be disastrous to reduce or eliminate them,” the brief says.

The brief notes that warmth and moderately higher carbon dioxide levels in recent decades have correlated with an overall greening of Earth and record crop harvests. The document shows that per capita gross domestic product has increased over the last 2,000 years from a few dollars to approximately $7,000, closely tracking the increased use of coal, oil and natural gas in recent centuries.

The brief says that the president’s order violates a congressional directive requiring that benefits as well as costs be included in environmental considerations and that it exceeds the president’s authority by unilaterally creating new law.

The CO2 Coalition, based in Arlington, Va., is an organization of approximately 95 scientists and researchers engaged in educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to people’s lives and the economy.

https://co2coalition.org/media/co2-coalition-tells-court-carbon-regulation-scientifically-invalid/

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

GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

Three articles below

Divisive Greenies put reconciliation in peril

PM Albanese spoke well to the matter but the flag is a side-issue. The hopelessly impractical Greenie climate policies are the big issue. And the Greens now have substantial representation in both houses of parliament so those policies matter.

The temptation for the Left is to ally with the Greens as both of them wish destruction on us. So we can only hope that Albo gets enough support for saner policies from the conservatives to resist that temptation

Anthony Albanese says the push for reconciliation risks being undermined by the refusal of Greens leader Adam Bandt to stand in front of the Australian flag.

The Prime Minister said every parliamentarian should be proud to stand in front of the national flag, urging Mr Bandt to “reconsider his position and work to promote unity and work to promote reconciliation”.

“Reconciliation is about bringing people together on the journey that we need to undertake.

“It is undermined if people look for division rather than look for unity,” Mr Albanese said.

The criticism of the Greens escalated further on Wednesday after the party’s First Nations spokeswoman, Lidia Thorpe, said she was only in the parliament to “infiltrate” the “colonial project”.

Incoming Northern Territory Country Liberal Party senator Jacinta Price said Governor-General David Hurley should investigate whether there were grounds to dismiss Senator Thorpe from parliament. “I think she has nothing but contempt for the Australian people and she doesn’t respect the position she is in,” Ms Price said.

“I personally feel that the Governor-General should take a closer look at what her real intentions are and consider whether this is possible grounds for dismissal.

“She doesn’t see herself as an Australian, she doesn’t see herself as being represented by the Australian flag. Therefore she is not the right person to be in a position to represent the Australian people nor does it indicate she has Australia’s best interests at heart.”

Indigenous leader Warren Mundine said he was “flabbergasted” by Senator Thorpe’s comments.

“She is carrying on like she is in a five-year-old’s spy game,” Mr Mundine said.

“I just shake my head at these people. We have got so many problems with Indigenous communities … They have got to have jobs and businesses operating, and education.

“So is she there to blow the place up? It is just bizarre.”

On Tuesday night, Senator Thorpe said both the flag and the parliament “does not represent me or my people”.

“It represents the colonisation of these lands. And it has no permission to be here. There’s been no consent,” Senator Thorpe told Network Ten’s The Project.

“I’m there to infiltrate.

“I signed up to become a senator in the colonial project and that wasn’t an easy decision for me personally, and it wasn’t an easy decision for my family either to support me in this. However, we need voices like this to question the illegitimate occupation of the colonial system in this country.”

RSL Australia president Greg Melick said Mr Bandt’s action on the flag was disrespectful to Australian service personnel and veterans. “The RSL condemns the actions of Mr Bandt in the strongest possible terms,” he said.

“Australians have served under our national flag, irrespective of their race, religion or political views, and it and all our present and past service personnel deserve the highest respect.

“Mr Bandt’s move was disrespectful to all these people and the RSL rejects it as unfitting of a member of our national parliament.”

Labor Left senator Tim Ayres said Mr Bandt’s flag policy was “some of the most empty gesture politics”.

“University, Trotskyite-sort of politics,” Senator Ayres told the ABC.

“There ought to be a bit of growing up around the place and a bit of self-reflection is absolutely in order for Mr Bandt and his colleagues.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/divisive-adam-bandt-puts-reconciliation-in-peril-anthony-albanese-says/news-story/0d6ede1d147478816b6e9ff1508d2fb1

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

Energy reality is now biting hard

Turning a blind eye to the limits of "renewables" no longer works. We may be getting close to their practical limit

Energy crises have a useful ambiguity to them. Each crisis creates an opportunity for everyone to claim that, ‘It would never have happened if we’d just done what they said all along!’

Everyone, that is, except the people who actually did do what they said – they have to sit down and explain why it was both unforeseeable but will resolve if we just continue doing what they say.

Reality always wins. Politicians can argue, investors can throw around money, and journalists can spin dramatic headlines. Energy does not care.

What we knew was coming

Several years ago, I attended a Lunch & Learn by the CEO of the Clean Energy Council. He put up a slide listing all the Australian coal-fired power stations that would be reaching the end of their design life in the next thirty years. It looked something like this:

He then put a question to the group: ‘Why wouldn’t we replace these with the cheapest form of energy available?’ It sounds obvious. At the time, a wind farm had been approved with an agreed price of only $55/MWh, which is a very low cost.

The problem with this argument (as I previously pointed out here) is that you may be paying less for wind and solar, but you aren’t getting the same thing. Coal-fired power stations not only provide energy, they provide available capacity when the wind isn’t blowing, frequency stabilisation, and a single connection for a large energy supply.

If we replace them with wind then we need wind farms, but we also need energy storage, frequency control systems, multiple connections – some of those with long transmission lines.

I challenged the speaker with expensive reality after his presentation. He replied, ‘Yes, but nobody knows the cost of those things.’ How is that an acceptable answer? If nobody knows the cost, you can’t just assume it is zero. That is beyond moronic, it is flagrantly dishonest.

Here is a useful bit of information – the larger the portion of supply that comes from wind and solar, the more supplementary infrastructure is required.

When renewables are supplying less than 20 per cent of total capacity, their shortcomings can be accommodated elsewhere in the electricity network. Above this, they begin to create significant issues.

South Australia had to install a battery, synchronous condensers, additional backup generation, and relies heavily on its connection to the rest of the NEM through an interconnector. The Grattan Institute report Go for net zero showed that even achieving 90 per cent renewable would be significantly easier than 100 per cent.

For this reason, after attending the IEA lunch, my conclusion was this: For now, we may be able to replace the coal generation we have lost with a combination of renewables, supplementary infrastructure, and other flexible backup generation (i.e. gas-fired open-circuit generators). So far we have indeed handled the closures of one-third of our coal plants, equivalent to about 20 per cent of energy supply.

This is unlikely to continue.

The sheer volume of energy that we will need to displace is large. The question is not whether the network can handle more renewables, but where they will even be installed and whether they can be built fast enough.

Eventually, the storage problem will be revealed as just that – a problem. We may have to hold our noses and build more coal-fired generators. If we aren’t willing to do that then the only remaining compromise, as conservative commentators have been saying forever… may be to build some nuclear power plants.

Yet the clear and loud objective of the clean energy council (which is a lobby) and many other parties, is to ensure this doesn’t happen. Their firm belief is that we can replace our fossil fuel generation with renewables. Worse, however, the attitude of many is that if they directly oppose coal-fired power, then they will force the change that they want.

Last year, when the International Energy Agency released its first Net Zero by 2050 report, it said the following: ‘There is no need for new investment in fossil fuel supply in our Net Zero pathway.’

In the pathway, there were two milestones for 2021: ‘No new unabated coal plants approved for development’ and ‘no new oil and gas fields approved for development’. Considering the two energy crises that have occurred in 2022 – oil and gas shortages and coal shortages – they appear to be getting what they wanted.

The Australian energy stalemate

The future of our existing fossil-fuel assets has been topical for a long time. Back in 2017, it raised its head with the announcement of the closure of Liddell. You may recall that several conservative politicians (Tony Abbott, George Christensen, etc.) fought for Liddell to remain online and tabled nationalising it as a means to force its sale rather than closure. This was based on a kind of compromised view – if we are not going to build any new coal power, then at least we must try to get our current coal power to last as long as possible, to reduce the shock to the system.

Some green idealists, however, responded with the opposite aim. They desire to close the coal plants as fast as possible to fulfil their primary goal – leaving coal in the ground. The most notable manifestation of this view is Mike Cannon-Brookes’ recent actions. Having earned billions from software development, he tried to team up with a Canadian investment company Brookefields to purchase AGL. The stated aim was to accelerate coal power-plant closures.

AGL rejected his bid, and the board advanced a demerger proposal. The demerger would result in two companies, only one of which would hold all the coal generation assets. AGL has been responsible for building and managing a large number of renewables projects all around Australia, yet because they also own coal assets, they are demonised and considered untouchable for green investment. In response, Mike Cannon-Brookes bought 10 per cent of the company and sent a letter to the rest of the shareholders asking them to vote against the demerger. The board gave up the plan for the demerger, and several board members announced their impending resignations.

AGL is in an unworkable position – no one wants to invest in their work. At the same time, as a major generator, they have obligations to the market operator. They are required to retain generation capacity or replace capacity that they remove, without compromising grid stability.

Further evidence of the stalemate that has existed in the energy business over the last few years is the Kurri-Kurri project. When the federal government realised that the NEM would need more generation capacity once Liddell closes, they were essentially forced to construct the new Kurri-Kurri power plant themselves, because the private sector wouldn’t do it. It should have been the safest investment around – critical infrastructure with government backing. And yet the political and social climate has everyone terrified of putting money into fossil fuels.

The project has faced continuous negative media, including Matt Kean.

Hopefully, the projects detractors can now feel egg dripping off their chins. The current energy crisis is clear evidence that additional generation capacity will be welcome and possible not even enough (SA’s state-owned diesel generator has certainly been getting a workout over the last month!)

Machines don’t suddenly fail the day that they reach their design life. Power plants are really just giant engines, similar to the one in your car. Imagine you were driving your car continuously for 50 years. Would you expect it to start needing maintenance at the end of that? Eventually, your car would need so much care that the maintenance costs would exceed the value that the car returns, and you are better off getting a new one.

Currently, we have two simultaneous crises. The first is international. The entire world is facing a fuel availability crisis caused simultaneously by the after-shocks of the Covid pandemic (demand recovered at a rapid rate after the pandemic) and the Russia-Ukraine war. This has been exacerbated by some government policies and a hostile investment climate. The latter two issues work together in a negative feedback loop stoked by green activists – the more government policy is hostile, the more reluctant everyone is to invest. This international energy problem is felt mainly through the current high prices.

The second crisis is local. The energy market operator reports on reserve capacity. This is the amount of additional electricity generation that is available to the market if needed. If reserve capacity becomes less than the two largest generators in the system, this is called a Loss of Reserve (LOR) level 1 event. This means that if we had a sudden shutdown of our two largest generators, the system would have insufficient capacity to meet demand.

If capacity goes below the single largest generator, this is called a LOR 2, and means that losing the largest generator could trigger a supply shortfall. LOR 3 occurs when there is an insufficient reserve, and the operator expects to have to trigger intentional blackouts for load-shedding.

This local crisis is only tangentially related to the international one. It occurred mainly because some ageing infrastructure had issues and needed to shut down. As can be seen on the following graph, Bayswater, one of the largest suppliers to the system, lost two generators between June 7-9, reducing it to a third of its registered capacity (one of them came back online just two days ago). Since late May, Liddell has been running only 2 of its 4 generator trains. Gladstone in Queensland is also operating well below its registered capacity.

Writers for The Guardian, RenewEconomy, many journalists at the ABC, and probably every Teal Independent, argue that the current crisis proves that coal is the problem. After all, the coal infrastructure is to blame, so we wouldn’t have these issues if it wasn’t there, right? But the current issue is being caused by only a partial supply shortfall of coal power. What if we lost it all?

At the risk of repeating myself, I must stress: wind and solar can’t solve this problem. 100 per cent supply shortfalls of solar are a daily occurrence. It’s called nighttime. Supply shortfalls of wind are a weekly occurrence at least. The NEM was operating on only 1 per cent wind just two days ago. Comparing solar/wind supply with coal is to make a category error. One cannot replace the other until we have bulk energy storage infrastructure, which currently, simply, does not exist.

Conclusion

Last year, the IEA ‘Net Zero’ roadmap received two different receptions. Some perceived it as what it claimed to be: a pathway for Net Zero 2050. Where the report said that all government, people, private sector across the whole world would have to ‘work together’ to ‘act immediately’, they believed that this is what must surely happen because Net Zero by 2050 is the only option.

Others (like me) received the report as a clear statement that Net Zero by 2050 is doomed. When it listed seven things that would all have to happen in order to achieve Net Zero by 2050, and all of them were virtually impossible, and on further inspection, its assessment of the state of technology was even optimistic… It didn’t look like a roadmap to a place this planet is going anytime soon. In my view, unless a significant technological advancement comes along, we will not be achieving Net Zero by 2050.

The current buzzword is ‘the energy transition’. Note the definite article ‘the’ – it is spoken about as if it is a fact, and yet it is not a transition driven by natural causes. Any natural drivers for change – such as scarcity or competitiveness of new technology – are many decades away. This is a transition that requires a forced change. Hence, the persistent focus of its proponents on government action and divestment.

Yet this is our power supply that they are messing with. When there are supply shortfalls in the electricity market, people die. And they don’t die in twenty years due to global temperature rises, they die tomorrow. Unlike the ‘climate emergency’, electricity supply shortfalls actually meet the definition of an emergency.

If Australian billionaires and investors wish to effect an energy transition, then they are free to build the technology needed to do it. They can build batteries and develop tidal technology, geothermal, or solar, they can support better housing insulation, they can make hydrogen or ammonia or biogas, they can make electric vehicles… They can do whatever floats their boats. But until they have, they need to stop demonising and sabotaging the infrastructure that already exists and is keeping us alive.

That’s the reality, and reality always wins.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/energy-reality-bites-hard/

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

Australia: The greenest lemmings in the world?

Viv Forbes

Australia’s new ALP/Green/Teal government has a Zero Emissions plan, putting them on track to be the victor in the Great Green Lemming Race.

America’s John Kerry was previously a strong contender to win the Great Green Lemming race, but he was given a stiff handicap by United Nations organisers due to America having access to reliable coal, oil, gas, hydro, and nuclear power, not to mention plus cross-border pipelines and power lines.

Biden is trying to close these loopholes. Literally.

Eight nations have withdrawn from the Green Lemming Race. Russia has joined China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, and Turkey in forming a new and powerful G8. This hard-headed group ignore Net Zero dogma unless that suits their business plan. The G8 members have diverse reliable energy supplies – oil, coal, gas, hydro. and nuclear. They use wind and solar primarily for virtue-signalling or to earn billions making and selling millions of green toys to Net Zero Lemmings like us.

Europeans were disqualified from the Great Green Lemming Race when they were caught cheating. They pretended to run on intermittent energy from windmills and sunbeams, but whenever these failed they quickly filled the power shortfall with reliable energy from French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, Polish and German coal, Iceland geothermal, North Sea natural gas, and (sanctions permitting) Russian gas, oil, and coal.

Australia has ageing coal plants (marked for demolition), wildly unstable supplies of disruptive and intermittent green electricity, oodles of gas (but unwelcome in local markets), and abundant uranium for export (but none for local nuclear power). Australia is also a remote island with no extension cords to neighbours with reliable energy. They remain a clear favourite in the Great Green Lemming Race.

Sometime soon, at dinner time on a cold still night, the Aussie winners of the Great Green Lemming Race will be acclaimed by widespread blackouts and a failing economy.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/the-greenest-lemmings-in-the-world/

Friday, June 24, 2022

‘Wrong decision’: Germany to defy EU plan to ban petrol cars by 2035

Germany could defy the European Union’s effective ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035, in a move aimed at protecting hundreds of thousands of jobs in its world-leading car manufacturing sector.

Just days after Berlin announced it would fire up mothballed coal-fired power stations next northern winter as Russian cuts to gas exports threaten shortfalls, Finance Minister Christian Lindner said completely phasing out the combustion engine in Europe was “the wrong decision” because manufacturers elsewhere in the world, such as China, would fill the gap.

As part of the European Union’s plan to cut greenhouse emissions by 55 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels, it has proposed a 100 per cent reduction in emissions from new cars by 2035, a mandate that would make it impossible to sell new petrol or diesel vehicles.

Lindner, a member of the business-friendly Free Democratic party within the coalition government, told a conference on Tuesday evening AEST: “Germany is not going to agree to a ban on combustion engines.”

Speaking at a conference hosted by Germany’s BDI industry association, Lindner said there would continue to be niche demand for combustion engines and the German government – where his party shares power with the Social Democrats and Greens - would not agree to the European legislation.

He said Germany would still be a leading market for electric vehicles.

Eighteen of the world’s 100 top automotive carmakers – including Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen - are German. More than 4.6 million passenger cars and 283,567 commercial vehicles were manufactured by the country’s plants in 2019, before the coronavirus outbreak. The broader sector employs about 750,000 people.

Production of electric cars in Germany rose by 86 per cent in 2021, while combustion engines were down 23 per cent.

Several companies have already agreed to phase out combustion engines, with Volkswagen boss Ralf Brandstatter saying recently the shift to electrification was “irreversible”. Mercedes has already pledged to be all-electric by 2030, “where market conditions allow”.

The war in Ukraine and pressure to transition away from Russian gas has thrown the German economy into chaos, with the International Monetary Fund this week warnings its energy woes were a serious threat to Europe’s largest economy.

Adding to tensions within the German coalition, a spokesman for Environment Minister Steffi Lemke, from the Green alliance, said the government “fully supports the proposal by the Commission and the European Parliament to allow new passenger cars and light commercial vehicles only with zero-emission powertrains from 2035”.

The European Parliament signed off on the 2035 zero emissions mandate earlier this month. The European Council is due to make a final call at a meeting of EU climate and environment ministers on June 28.

The leader of Italy’s far-right Lega party, Matteo Salvini, referred to the decision at the time as “madness” calling it a “gift to China, a disaster for millions of Italians and Europeans”.

Italy is pushing to obtain an exception for carmakers like Ferrari, Bugatti and Lamborghini from the ban.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/germany-could-defy-eu-plan-to-ban-petrol-cars-by-2035-20220622-p5avl4.html

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

Biden Abuses Executive Authority to Pursue His Environmental Agenda

Plagued by inflation, a projected upcoming Republican wave in the midterm elections, and high gas prices, President Joe Biden is desperately seeking a win on clean energy.

To achieve that win, he has authorized the inappropriate use of the Defense Production Act— an egregious misuse of executive power.

Last Monday, Biden announced that he authorized use of the Defense Production Act to speed up the domestic production of clean energy technologies—like solar panels and heat pumps— for use in buildings.

The Defense Production Act gives the president a broad set of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. Since it was passed at the start of the Korean War, the act has served as a valuable federal statute to ensure that, when called upon, the domestic industrial base is capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense.

Over the years, Congress broadened “national defense” to include national emergencies, like pandemics, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters. Biden’s latest actions, however, strain the definition of national defense past the point of credulity. He has authorized the act to serve his political goals—in this case, a radical environmental agenda.

Last year, Biden’s $2.2 trillion Build Back Better bill, which included billions in clean energy programs, failed to pass in Congress. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who killed Biden’s landmark legislation, stated that part of his opposition to the bill was due to its climate and clean energy provisions, saying they “risk the reliability of our electric grid and increase our dependence on foreign supply chains.”

In this latest executive action, Biden has ignored Manchin’s objections and decided to pursue his agenda without the approval of Congress.

Biden’s misuse of Defense Production Act allocated funds is nothing new. For example, the Obama administration’s 2012 invocation of the Defense Production Act to advance the production of biofuel was packaged as providing energy security for America’s warfighters. However, it soon became clear that the flawed project had nothing to do with national defense, and everything to do with a radical and expensive (the Biofuel Production Project was allotted $230.5 million) environmental agenda.

Now, in a similar initiative, Biden has authorized the Department of Energy to use the Defense Production Act “to strengthen the resiliency of the nation’s supply chain” for solar, transformers and electric grid components, heat pumps, insulation, electrolyzers, fuel cells, and platinum group metals.

The administration has failed to justify how solar panels could meaningfully contribute to the national defense, even under an expanded definition of national defense.

According to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, “For too long the nation’s clean energy supply chain has been over-reliant on foreign sources and adversarial nations.” Likewise, according to the deputy defense secretary, Kathleen Hicks, “reducing America’s dependence on gas and oil is critical to U.S. national security.”

OK—so the policy is go green by investing in domestic solar manufacturing and we will become more energy independent and less reliant on foreign adversaries.

So, does a transition from oil and gas to solar panels make us less reliant on foreign sources and adversarial nations, thereby strengthening our national security?

The answer is simple: No!

This is plainly obvious by the administration’s decision to, in tandem with the Defense Production Act authorization to stimulate solar panel manufacturing, potentially make it easier for solar companies in the U.S. to import cheaper Chinese-made solar parts from Southeast Asia.

Biden’s two-year halt on new solar tariffs will allow domestic project developers to continue using foreign-made equipment while U.S. manufacturing presumably ramps up using taxpayer funds through the Defense Production Act.

Americans benefit from being able to access the most competitive technologies to meet their energy needs. But the president’s supposed national security reasoning is just a red herring to manipulate energy markets to his preferred technology. According to his order, we will simply be shifting our foreign reliance on energy from global oil markets to Asian solar components, while ignoring that solar energy is not a perfect replacement for oil in meeting peoples’ energy needs.

Thus, on the false pretense that clean energy strengthens national security by decreasing our reliance on foreign sources and adversarial nations, the Biden administration misused its authority with the Defense Production Act, and the U.S. is still reliant on foreign sources and a new adversarial nation—China.

So, this is bad energy policy, terrible trade policy, and even worse defense policy given that we will now be more dependent on China, which Secretary of State Anthony Blinken just called the “most serious long-term threat” to the world order.

Biden’s misuse of the Defense Production Act is all the more frustrating in light of the real, urgent national security needs the act could be used to address.

U.S. munitions stocks are being depleted as Javelin and Stinger missiles are being sent to Ukraine, and industry says it will take years to manufacture enough to replenish those stocks. The Defense Production Act could force industry to prioritize those contracts and could provide funds to increase manufacturing capacity.

Instead, in choosing to pursue environmental pet projects, this administration is demonstrating a lack of seriousness about our national defense—at a time when the country cannot afford to be anything but serious.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/17/biden-abuses-executive-authority-to-pursue-his-environmental-agenda

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

Paper co-authored by UAH’s Dr. Christy on climate model warming bias is a top 10 download

A research paper finding a significant global warming bias in climate models that was co-authored by the interim vice president for research and economic development at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) has been cited by John Wiley & Sons Inc. as a top 10 download over the past 12 months in the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Earth and Space Science journal.

The paper was previously cited in 2021 as among the 10% most downloaded from the AGU journal in 2020.

“So, what drives the interest here is the incessant drumbeat of climate doom and gloom based on model forecasts, and the corresponding political reactions that create for us challenges like $100 per fill-up and attendant price increases – and some scarcity – for everything else,” says Dr. John Christy, who is also a distinguished professor of atmospheric science, Alabama’s state climatologist and the director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at UAH, a part of the University of Alabama System. “When an issue hits people squarely in the pocketbook, it becomes important.”

“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers” was co-authored by Dr. Ross McKitrick, an econometrician at the University of Guelph in Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

“With the ubiquitous and dramatic claims regarding the climate change issue all around us, it was a simple idea that Ross and I had: let’s test some of those claims that are based on models,” Dr. Christy says. “In particular was this simple scientific question: How well do the climate models on which these scary claims are based actually perform in the real world?”

The scientists examined and updated historical data focusing on 1979-2014 from the newest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) climate model and found that what previously were excessive warming rates modeled only in the tropical troposphere are now being excessively modeled globally. All of their model runs warmed faster than observations in the lower troposphere and mid-troposphere, both in the tropics and globally.

They found that the temperature of the bulk atmosphere, as measured by satellites, is an ideal characteristic to monitor for the detection of climate change. As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA, Dr. Christy with ESSC principal research scientist Dr. Roy Spencer publish a monthly Global Temperature Report that uses data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA, NASA and European satellites to produce temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth.

“We tested the ability of climate models to reproduce what the real world has already experienced using a variable – the bulk atmospheric temperature – that is a basic metric of the climate system,” Dr. Christy says. “All models heated up the atmosphere much faster on average than did Mother Nature over the past 40-plus years.”

He says that the models, which are simply theoretical hypotheses that need testing, failed a significant test of their ability to represent the way the real world works.

“This tells us we shouldn’t have much confidence in their forecasts, since they weren’t able to characterize the past 40 years correctly,” Dr. Christy says.

A separate test indicates that the disparity still exists, Dr. Christy says.

“We actually ran the test through 2021 a little later and achieved the same result.”

https://yellowhammernews.com/paper-co-authored-by-uahs-dr-christy-on-climate-model-warming-bias-is-a-top-10-download/

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

Australia: State picks fossil fuel over energy storage

Is there no such thing as an intelligent journalist left? OF COURSE nobody much is investing in energy storage. Either it is useful only for a few hours (batteries) or its costs are astronomical (pumped hydro). Coal, gas and nuclear are the only reliable power sources. All the rest is fantasy

The Queensland government has prioritised coal and gas-fired generation over energy storage

Twice as many taxpayer dollars will be spent on Queensland coal and gas-fired plants this year as they will on installing new renewable energy storage in the state.

Queensland already has the nation's highest wholesale electricity prices, which experts say is mostly due to its reliance on fossil fuel and lack of energy storage.

Household electricity bills will rise by 10 per cent, while power bills for businesses will soar 20 per cent from July.

Treasurer Cameron Dick will partly offset that by wiping $14.58 off household monthly bills for the next 12 months.

However, businesses won't get any support and will likely pass on their extra costs to consumers.

Over the long term, the state government will need to transition to renewable energy sooner if it wants to spare consumers further price pain.

Vast renewable generation projects are under construction, but the state needs about 6.5 gigawatts of energy storage as well.

Mr Dick promised $35 million in funding for a feasibility study on a 5-7GW pumped hydropower storage project in Tuesday's budget.

Another $13 million will be spent on finalising a study for a proposed 1GW pumped hydro project near Gympie.

However, the three public electricity generators will also spend $480 million with the majority of that propping up ageing coal and gas generation, rather than storage.

Stanwell Corporation, CS Energy and CleanCo will spend about $232.7 million on maintenance, upgrades and spare parts for coal and gas plants in 2022/23.

Stanwell will pour $21 million into the Meandu coal mine and CS Energy will invest $1.2 million on the Kogan Creek coal mine.

CleanCo - originally set up to be a renewable energy firm - will spend $13.6 million on the Kogan North Gas Field, which it jointly owns with Arrow Energy.

The big investment in fossil fuel generation comes with the government expecting to bank dividends from the generators in 2022/23, and for those to rise in 2023/24.

"This trend reflects earnings growth of these businesses, with the current wholesale market environment supporting returns in the next couple of years, and a return to more stable levels over the forward estimates," the budget said.

Meanwhile, the three generators will invest less than half the amount they spend on fossil fuel generation than they will on increasing renewable energy storage capacity.

About $122.5 million will be spent on two batteries at Chinchilla and on the Darling Downs, which will eventually be able to store about 500MW, in 2022/23.

Queensland will need about 14 times more storage than that to transition to renewable energy and phase out coal generation.

The three generators are also investing about $85.1 million in the Wambo and Karara wind farms, which will eventually generate 353MW of electricity.

In total, the state government will invest $281.8 million on renewable energy and $232.7 million on fossil fuel generation in 2022/23.

https://7news.com.au/politics/qld-picks-fossil-fuel-over-energy-storage-c-7258943

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

Killing Jobs in the Name of Saving the Planet

During the State of the Union address to Congress this year, President Joe Biden delivered an astoundingly Orwellian endorsement of socialism, clothed as its anti-matter counterpart.

“I’m a capitalist, but capitalism without competition isn’t capitalism,” the president declared. “It’s exploitation, and it drives up prices. When corporations don’t have to compete, their profits go up, your prices go up, and small businesses and family farmers and ranchers go under.”

Besides dubiously blaming today’s 40-year-high inflation on corporate greed (greed that, presumably, was inexplicably dormant during decades of inflation that was a fraction of today’s), Biden’s remarks shamelessly suggest that his administration’s heavy imposition of new and revived regulations fosters competition when the real mission is to level unprecedented burdens and governmental control upon businesses of all sizes.

“I’m a capitalist” belongs alongside “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

Promising to reduce average global temperatures by a degree or two is the most fashionable excuse in America today for the state battering companies, even though Russia and China have no intention of joining in the climate crusade at the expense of their expansionist objectives, and India and other developing nations aren’t going to abandon the ongoing industrialization their people yearn for in exchange for being congratulated by international bodies for going green.

Socialists who aren’t hiding their true identity propose basically a quick and merciful death for the private sector, like now-ousted British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn arguing that wasteful “fragmentation” warrants re-nationalizing privatized railroads. Or Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders proposing a 95 percent tax on companies that are more successful than he likes. But while Biden suggests he’s enabling enhanced competition, his Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, Gary Gensler, finds new forms of slow torture for this country’s employers. Gensler was heavily involved in writing one of the most onerous pieces of regulatory legislation ever—2002’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which costs Fortune 500 firms millions of dollars each annually on average, and has been a powerful disincentive to firms setting themselves up as publicly traded or retaining that status.

The SEC’s most prominent policy under Gensler is requiring issuers of stocks and bonds to assess and report the risks climate change poses to their investors. As Heritage Foundation senior fellow David Burton pointed out in a letter to Gensler, “Requiring all public companies to develop climate modeling expertise, the ability to make macroeconomic projections based on these models and then make firm-specific economic assessments based on these climate and economic models will be expensive, imposing costs that will amount to billions of dollars on issuers. These expenses would harm investors by reducing shareholder returns.”

Burton also points to the irony that discouraging companies from being or going public gives fat cats more wealth and the average Joe less because it “would deny to ordinary (unaccredited) investors the opportunity to invest in dynamic, high-growth, profitable companies until most of the money has already been made by affluent accredited investors” and “would further impede entrepreneurial access to public capital markets.”

According to former SEC chief economist James Overdahl, the “massive scope and prescriptive particularity” of the regulations, “centering around the inherent complexity in collecting required data and completing the calculations and analysis necessary to make the proposed disclosures” make it “difficult to recall any other instance in which the SEC has mandated disclosures where there are so many significant uncertainties, data limitations and practical difficulties in developing the required information.”

Obviously, lawsuits would become legion, as publicly traded firms are endlessly accused of failing to report climate impact to the full satisfaction of environmentalists. But companies not to be found on the stock exchange, who think themselves safe in their private status, will actually also be subject to heavy new costs, because public companies’ private partners and contractors will be required by the SEC to report their emissions, outside firms having to be turned to for certification.

In a media conference call on Thursday, U.S. Chamber Executive VP Tom Quaadman pointed out that according to the SEC itself, the climate disclosure rule in its current form “would be at least three times the implementation costs of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was the most expensive disclosure regime that we’ve gone through over the last generation,” requiring “almost 16 to 18 years to finalize all of the different Sarbanes-Oxley rules.”

Quaadman added that after “many, many meetings” with companies that are U.S. Chamber members, they told the Chamber of “implementation costs in the millions or tens of millions of dollars” for each firm—many times the SEC’s estimates.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/killing-jobs-in-the-name-of-saving-the-planet_4543237.html

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

MMT + ESG = Inflation

As Americans continue to suffer from intransigent—not transitory—inflation, many theories have been floated concerning the roots of the 8.6 percent inflationary rate that is absolutely devastating the lower- and middle-classes.

According to the Biden administration, blame for the worst rate of inflation in more than four decades lies with “Big Oil,” “Big Meat,” “Big Shipping,” and, of course, Vladimir Putin.

However, the American people are not buying Biden’s excuses for the runaway inflation they are enduring under his watch. In fact, most Americans pin the blame for out-of-control inflation on Biden and his misguided policies.

Fortunately, it seems as if the American people are quite a bit smarter than the Biden administration believes they are. Because when the rubber meets the road, there are two primary factors driving the awful inflation that is poisoning the U.S. economy.

Those factors are called modern monetary theory (MMT) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, which have both been fully embraced by the Biden administration.

In short, MMT posits that “a government can merge fiscal and monetary policy and simply print currency to pay for its expenditures indefinitely without economic costs or constraints,” according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

In other words, MMT advocates, which include Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, believe the U.S. government can print enormous sums of money to cover profligate government spending with no consequences. Apparently, these people do not grasp the basic economic concept that when the government spends and prints huge sums of money, the value of existing dollars plummets.

As Milton Friedmann famously put it, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

In less than two years, Biden has gone all-in on MMT. From his $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan to his $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” plan, Biden and the Democrat-controlled Congress have unleashed the federal spending spigot like never before. And, remember, Biden and Congress pleaded for another $5 trillion spending bonanza via the Build Back Better bill, which was thankfully stopped in its tracks by two brave Democratic senators.

Indeed, since taking office, the Biden administration has overseen the largest expansion in the U.S. money supply ever. In 18 months, the U.S. M2 money supply has grown by $6 trillion. To put into context, when Biden was inaugurated, the M2 money supply was $15.4 trillion. Today, it stands at $21.7 trillion.

Make no mistake, Biden’s MMT policies are promoting inflation based on the simple fact that printing trillions of dollars in a short span of time debases the currency, making each dollar less valuable.

While rampant money printing is arguably the primary force behind America’s roaring inflation, one should not overlook Biden’s war on U.S. energy production via his administration’s support of ESG investing.

In a nutshell, ESG investing is the epitome of crony capitalism because it empowers government and large financial institutions to collude in seeking preferred political and economic outcomes.

At the heart of ESG investing is the so-called “environmental” outcomes its overlords pursue, which conveniently rewards green energy projects while punishing fossil fuel producers by restricting access to capital.

In other words, ESG investing seeks to destroy the affordable and reliable fossil fuel industry through attrition warfare while flooding money into renewable energy sources that are more expensive and less reliable.

As Will Hares, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, succinctly said, “Oil companies are finding it increasingly difficult to raise financing amid rising ESG and sustainability concerns, while banks are under pressure from their own investors to reduce or eliminate fossil-fuel financing.”

By arbitrarily reducing their access to capital, oil and gas companies are less able to engage in research and development, which means they produce less oil and gas. No wonder the United States is extracting less oil and gas than it did before the pandemic. And, no wonder the cost of energy, especially gasoline and diesel fuels, is skyrocketing at an absolutely dizzying rate.

Without a doubt, the rise in energy prices, due to ESG investing and Biden’s other anti-fossil fuel policies, is exacerbating inflationary measures and reducing Americans’ standard of living.

Fortunately, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Because our present bout of inflation is mostly due to MMT and ESG, we know it can be reversed.

Yes, it will not be easy and there will be more pain to come.

But, we have been in this boat before. In the late 1970s, the U.S. economy suffered through a similar inflationary period. Although the circumstances were not the same, similar principles were at play.

By the early 1980s, the inflationary dragon had been slayed via common sense economic policies of sound money, tax cuts, and regulatory reforms that spurred a two-decade economic boom.

We did it then. We can do it again. All we have to do is renounce those who are pushing the modern-day economic snake oil known as MMT and ESG investing.

https://townhall.com/columnists/christalgo/2022/06/16/mmt--esg--inflation-n2608798

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

Climate Czar John Kerry: 'We Absolutely Don't' Need Increased American Fossil Fuel Production

The panderer continues his pandering. It's all he knows

Talk about out of touch. President Joe Biden’s climate czar John Kerry openly rejected calls to increase American fossil fuel production last week, calling the arguments in favor of energy independence a “false narrative.”

The failed 2004 presidential candidate said Americans don’t need increased drilling and natural gas production as prices at the pump hit record highs.

Kerry was speaking at an event at the University of Southern California’s Center of Public Diplomacy on Friday, according to Fox News.

“Energy security worry is driving a lot of the thoughts now about, ‘Oh, we need more drilling. … We need to go back to coal.’

“No, we don’t. We absolutely don’t. And we have to prevent a false narrative from entering into this or, again, pun intended, we are cooked,” he said.

A lack of domestic energy production is the single largest factor in the exorbitant gas prices American commuters are paying under Biden.

Kerry’s claims contrast with the latest rhetoric from Biden himself. The president blasted energy companies for not refining enough crude oil in a Wednesday letter.

While Kerry wants to stop the flow of affordable energy to middle-class Americans, he’s not willing to rule out using such fuel himself.

In fact, Kerry’s energy usage is enough to dwarf anything that the average American could imagine.

As Biden’s special envoy for climate, Kerry flew in a private jet at least 16 times in 2021 alone. Some of his private jet trips included getaways to the luxury vacation venue of Martha’s Vineyard.

The former secretary of state has claimed that flying in a personal aircraft is the “only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.”

Evidently, Kerry’s trip to Martha’s Vineyard was his version of Gettysburg in the war against climate change.

As always with the limousine liberals of Silicon Valley and the Hamptons, it’s the “other people” who are creating pollution and need to change their standard of living.

Somebody needs to “transition” this guy out of his private jet and onto a crowded and uncomfortable city bus.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/biden-climate-czar-john-kerry-absolutely-dont-need-increased-american-fossil-fuel-production

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

How Australia's biggest state is spending $633MILLION on electric cars when fewer than one per cent of Aussies own one

Australia's most populated state is spending more than $630million on its electric car strategy even though just 0.6 per cent of Aussies own one, NSW budget figures reveal.

State Treasurer Matt Kean - known for climate change campaigning - announced on Tuesday that his government will spend an extra $38million on its electric car strategy, taking total investment to more than half a billion dollars.

The cash will be spent on rolling out more charging points in streets, apartment buildings and designated charging stations.

Australia lags the rest of the world when it comes to the take-up of electric vehicles, which account for less than one per cent of the million new cars sold every year. Across Australia, fully electric vehicles have a minuscule 0.6 per cent market share.

The NSW government wants to drive that figure to more than 50 per cent by 2030-31 under its Electric Vehicle Strategy.

Critics say the policies only help the rich because electric cars - which start at $44,000 - are too expensive for average income earners.

But supporters insist investment needs to be made now in preparation for when electric cars are cheaper and more popular.

Software billionaire and clean energy investor Mike Cannon-Brookes is among those who support electric car take-up.

Earlier this month he shared his surprise that the Moss Services Club in the southern highlands had a charging point.

'Kudos to the Moss Vale Services Club for having an @NRMA double EV charger in the car park,' he wrote.

'Charging my car while getting a schnitzel at the RSL with the kids felt like a new future for Australia… one that was nicely connected with our past.'

NSW Treasurer Matt Kean said rolling out more charges will 'allow more EV drivers to benefit from their cheaper running costs and a cleaner, quieter and more sustainable road network.'

He added: 'You'll never be far from a charger on our major highways, in regional destinations, apartment buildings and on kerbsides in metropolitan areas with limited off-street parking.'

The NSW government's strategy involves offering stamp duty exemptions for new and used electric vehicles worth up to $78,000.

Buyers are also spared paying up to $3,000 in charges that buyers of petrol and diesel cars still have to pay.

With a stamp duty exemption of $2,537.50 and that $3,000 rebate, they are getting back up to $5,540 from the taxpayers.

One Nation's NSW leader Mark Latham noted there was a a larger uptake for the subsidy in wealthier areas of Sydney's north shore and north-west.

'This shows how delusional NSW Treasurer Matt Kean has become in thinking he can save the planet with schemes like this,' he told Daily Mail Australia.

'Even from these early numbers, the inequity of the scheme is clear.

'This was always going to be a cross-subsidy from the poorer parts of NSW to the wealthier suburbs.'

As more people use electric cars, less fuel will be bought and governments will lose fuel duty revenue.

To make up for this the NSW government will introduce a road user charge of 2.5 cents per km (indexed to CPI) to electric cars from 1 July 2027 or when EVs make up 30 per cent of all new vehicle sales, whichever comes first.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10936305/How-Australias-biggest-state-spending-633MILLION-electric-vehicles.html

Tuesday, June 21, 2022

Why The Biden Admin Wants Censorship Of Renewable Energy Critics

The evil witch of climate politics

Biden Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy last week demanded that Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies crack down on those who are “seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not” in the name of public health.

In the face of widespread public outrage, the Biden Administration last month backed away from a proposal to create a disinformation board at the Department of Homeland Security.

But now it’s back with new demands to censor its critics, this time using a tactic that has worked in the recent past: by framing them as a threat to public health.

In a talk with Axios, Biden Administration Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said, “The tech companies have to stop allowing specific individuals over and over again to spread disinformation.”

After an Axios reporter asked, “Isn't misinformation and disinfo around climate a threat to public health itself?” McCarthy responded, “Oh, absolutely… We are talking, really, about risks that no longer need to be tolerated to our communities.”

McCarthy pointed specifically to those who criticized the failure of weather-dependent renewables during the blackouts in Texas in February 2021. But many of those criticisms were factual. Over the last decade in Texas, investors sunk over $53 billion on weather-dependent energy sources, mostly wind turbines, which alongside frozen fossil fuel plants were largely unavailable during the cold snap in February. That was only partly because of the cold and mostly because of low wind speeds.

McCarthy claimed that the critics of renewables are funded by “dark money” fossil fuel companies, which she compared to Big Tobacco. She claimed the critics are being paid to “fool” the public about “the benefits of clean energy.” “We need the tech companies to really jump in,” she said, because criticizing renewables is “equally dangerous to denial because we have to move fast.”

But the main critics of renewables, including those used in Texas, do not receive funding from the fossil fuel industry. Those critics including Bjorn Lomborg, author of False Alarm, Steve Kooning, author of Unsettled, and me.

Moreover, McCarthy’s own interview with Axios was sponsored by 3M, a major supplier to the solar industry that has lobbied directly for climate and energy legislation that would benefit 3M.

There is no question that social media companies including Meta (Facebook and Instagram), Twitter, and Alphabet (Google and YouTube) are well within their legal right to censor inaccurate and harmful information. But over the last two years, Big Tech has repeatedly censored individuals for communicating accurate information, including on covid and climate change.

Start with covid. In 2020, Facebook and Youtube censored information accurately suggesting that covid may have been created in a lab. Twitter removed a tweet by a member of the White House’s coronavirus task force who questioned the efficacy of masks. And Facebook censored a claim in October by President Donald Trump that a covid vaccine was imminent, which it was.

Censorship continued in 2021 with the encouragement of the White House. In mid-2021, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the Biden administration was identifying “problematic” covid posts for Facebook to censor. YouTube removed a video in which scientists from Harvard and Stanford expressed their opinion to Florida’s governor that children should not be required to wear masks. And Facebook censored former New York Times journalist John Tierney for accurately reporting on evidence of the harms to children from wearing masks.

There has been a similar pattern on climate change. In 2020, Facebook censored me for correctly pointing out that humans are not causing a sixth mass extinction and that weather-related disasters have become less deadly and less costly over time. Shortly after, Facebook censored John Stossel after he made a video that accurately pointed out that California’s high-intensity fires were mostly caused by poor government management, not climate change. And last year, Facebook censored Bjorn Lomborg for accurately reporting that the British medical journal Lancet found that warmer temperatures save lives.

Facebook and other social media companies give the people they have censored little in the way of an appeal process. After Stossel sued Facebook, its parent company, Meta, said in response to the lawsuit that Facebook’s “fact-checks” are just “opinion” and thus immune from defamation charges.

As such, notes The Wall Street Journal, “Merely pointing out technical limitations of lithium-ion batteries could be ‘disinformation,’” under the expansive censorship framework being proposed by McCarthy, Center for American Progress, and social media companies.

What, exactly, is going on? Given the widespread backlash to its proposed disinformation board, and the unfair censorship of accurate information, why is the Biden Administration once again seeking to censor its critics?

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-the-biden-admin-wants-censorship?s=w

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

If your power goes out this summer, blame President Joe Biden's energy policies

The president is beholden to climate extremists, and his administration is using every tool available to block American energy production. His administration is forcing American families through an energy transition that has no credible economic or technological path forward. It is a bitter pill to swallow.

President Joe Biden speaks during an interview with The Associated Press in the Oval Office on June 16, 2022.
Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Struggling with the price of fuel

We are living with the painful results. Consumers are struggling with sky-high energy costs feeding 40-year high inflation. Americans are confronted with a new record-high gasoline price almost daily.

At these prices, the average family could pay about $4,800 this year for gasoline, a 70% increase over a year ago. That pain at the pump is about to get even worse. JPMorgan Chase & Co. forecasts gasoline prices will hit an average of $6.20 a gallon by summer’s end. That’s up from the Memorial Day average of about $4.60.

It is not just gasoline prices pummeling family budgets. The price of electricity is climbing rapidly. In March alone, the average residential price for electricity jumped 4.6% over February’s rate. This was much more than expected and suggests an unusually large annual increase.

Welcome to reality, Mr. President: Inflation has Americans worried

Although consumers pay more for electricity, the service they are getting is growing less reliable. A recent assessment by the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) reveals that more than half of the country is at an elevated risk or high risk of energy shortfalls this summer – shortfalls that could lead to blackouts and brownouts.

There are a number of reasons for NERC’s findings. Generator retirements, coal supply constraints, the intermittent nature of wind and solar energy, insufficient electric transmission, demand growth, cyber threats and weather events are all factors.

President Biden’s ill-conceived “incredible transition” is making the first four of these factors worse. The NERC official who led the assessment said at a news briefing that the “pace of our grid transformation is a bit out of sync” with the realities of the current grid.

The head of the California Public Utilities Commission made a similar observation, stating, “We know that reliability is going to be difficult in this time of transition.”

Indeed, it has gotten so bad in California that the officials are warning the state could lack adequate electricity generation to keep the lights on this summer. That has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to reconsider closing California’s last operating nuclear power plant.

Seeing the writing on the wall

As usual, the American people are a step ahead of the politicians. Power outages are much more than an inconvenience. They impose real costs that can add up to tens of billions of dollars each year. While the administration is calling on Americans to buy high-priced electric cars, they are buying backup generators instead. Consumers see the writing on the wall, and they are acting to keep their lights on.

At the same time as the president’s misguided transition is creating grid instability, his administration is pushing policies that put even greater strain on the electric grid. Take electric vehicles. One estimate suggests, for example, that the United States would have to generate an additional 25% more electricity if all U.S. cars were electric. The “electrification of everything” is not a solution to an unreliable grid. It’s a road to even higher electricity prices and more blackouts.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/opinion/if-your-power-goes-out-this-summer-blame-president-joe-biden-s-energy-policies/ar-AAYEwPw?li=AAgfYrD

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

Germans to fire up old coal plants

Germany will restart coal-fired power plants and offer incentives for companies to curb natural gas consumption, marking a new step in the economic war between Europe and Russia.

Berlin unveiled the measures on Sunday after Russia cut gas supplies to Europe last week as it punched back against European sanctions and military support for Ukraine.

The steps, part of a broader strategy initiated after the invasion of Ukraine, aim to reduce gas consumption and divert gas deliveries to storage facilities to ensure that the country has enough reserves to get through the winter.

Russia’s gradual cutting of gas supplies has raised the spectre of a potential fuel shortage if Europe goes into winter with less-than-full stowages. It has also raised prices, putting additional pressure on economies that are already struggling with high inflation and rising borrowing costs and face the prospect of a recession.

Nord Stream, the main channel for Russian fuel to Europe, has reported a sharp drop in gas supplies.

Gazprom has blamed the shortfall on missing turbine parts that were stuck in Canada due to sanctions. European officials and analysts dismissed the explanation.

Germany imports about 35 per cent of its natural gas from Russia, down from 55 per cent before the war, and uses most of it for heating and manufacturing, according to German government estimates.

Last year, power generation using natural gas accounted for about 15 per cent of total public electricity in Germany, Economy Minister Robert Habeck said.

To accelerate the decline of gas in the power mix, Mr Habeck outlined a number of steps the government was taking to reduce reliance on gas and build up stores for the coming winter.

In a U-turn for a leader of the environmentalist Green Party, which has campaigned to reduce fossil-fuel use, Mr Habeck said the government would empower utility companies to extend the use of coal-fired power plants.

This would ensure that Germany has an alternative source of energy but would further delay the country’s efforts to slash carbon emissions.

“This is bitter,” Mr Habeck said of the need to rely on coal. “But in this situation, it is necessary to reduce gas consumption. Gas stores must be full by winter. That has the highest priority.”

Mr Habeck said the measure expires on March 31, 2024, by which time the government hoped to have created a sustainable alternative to Russian gas.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/germans-fire-up-old-coal-plants/news-story/e5c5046ece4803b2ecb8ff1dc79349a6

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

Renewable or reliable? Energy cannot be both

Australia’s new ALP government has gigantic green energy plans to be funded by electricity consumers and taxpayers.

They promise (with a straight face) that Australia’s electricity will be 82 per cent renewable by 2030.

They predict a 43 per cent reduction in emissions and being ‘on track for Net Zero by 2050’.

They threaten to litter the landscape with 400 community batteries, 85 solar banks, and a $20B expansion of the electricity grid.

This gigantic ‘green’ electricity plan will need at least 150 million Chinese solar panels covering outback kingdoms of land, plus thousands of bird-slicing metal-hungry wind turbines, plus never-ending roads and powerlines – not friendly to grass or trees and with no room for native birds, bees, bats or marsupials – not green at all.

The ALP has also revived the hoary plan to run an extension cord to Tasmania.

Naturally, some greedy green Tasmanians want to keep all that wind, solar, and hydro energy for themselves. Others dream of sending Northern Territory sunshine up a long cable from Darwin to Singapore.

With enthusiastic support from the new Parliament full of Climatists, Net Zeros, Teals, and Greens (but very few engineers) we can expect a disorderly rush to plaster a mess of electrical machinery and appliances all over the face of Australia.

They will also promote more demand for electricity for electric cars, many seeking overnight charging (despite having zero solar power and intermittent wind power at night). So we will need giant fire-prone batteries to recharge small fire-prone batteries.

When there is no sun on a single solar panel for 12 hours, no one notices; when all wind turbines sit idle for days under a slow-moving winter high, no one cares; but when one aging under-maintained coal plant falters, we notice; when three coal generators fail, we have a power crisis.

Yet we have green millionaires urging quicker closure of our few remaining 24/7 coal-powered generators.

The ALP/Green/Teal plan will clutter the countryside with solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, access roads (some bitumen), giant batteries, and fire-prone National Parks.

Eastern Australia recently had several very windy days, which caused many blackouts as trees and powerlines were blown down. Imagine the outages and repair costs after a cyclone slices thru this continent-wide spider-web of fragile power lines connecting millions of wind/solar generators, fire-prone batteries, and diverse markets. Picture the green energy network after the next big flood or bushfire.

Europeans can pretend to run a modern society with intermittent energy from windmills and sunbeams because they can call on reliable energy from French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, Polish and German coal, Iceland geothermal, North Sea natural gas, and (sometimes) Russian gas, oil, and coal.

Australia has no extension cord to neighbours with reliable energy – we are on our own.

We can have Renewable Energy, or Reliable Energy, but not both.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/renewable-or-reliable-energy-cannot-be-both/

Lockdowns for hot weather now

Region in France bans outdoor gatherings

Officials in France banned people from attending concerts, outdoor gatherings, and events due to safety concerns over a heatwave.

“Everyone now faces a health risk,” official Fabienne Buccio told France Bleu radio, after announcing the regional restrictions around Bordeaux.

Outdoor events – including, ironically, annual ‘Resistance’ celebrations – are banned until the officials declare the heatwave is over. They’re even restricting some indoor events that don’t have air conditioning.

However, private weddings are still allowed.

Temperatures reportedly hit 40 degrees Celsius on Thursday, and the heatwave is expected to peak on Saturday.

Nonetheless, rather than let people take responsibility for themselves – to hydrate or stay home – French officials are comfortable deciding for them.

Indeed, democratic governments seem comfortable stripping citizens’ freedoms for safety as of late. From COVID lockdowns to climate.

Recently, The Counter Signal reported that climate change lockdowns were likely on the horizon.

For example, unelected IGOs recently advised the British government to outright ban driving on Sundays to curb rising gas prices and address an energy crisis.

The advisement came from the International Energy Agency (IEA) as part of a 10-point plan, central to which is achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

And this isn’t as conspiratorial as it might sound.

For example, while speaking on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), International Council of Nurses CEO Howard Catton claimed that climate change is the “grandmother of all health threats,” suggesting that the WHO may get involved with climate change-related health risks, like heatwaves, in the future.

Moreover, Nicole Schwab, the daughter of World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab) recently said she wants governments to take advantage of COVID infrastructure and policies to fight climate change.

https://thecountersignal.com/region-in-france-bans-outdoor-gatherings-over-heatwave/

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

Why Corporate Environmental, Social, and Governance Enforcement Is Self-Reinforcing Scam

When the left tries to impose its policy visions on others, often the only winning move is not to play its game.

But when it comes to “ESG,” bureaucrats and billionaires have figured out how to force the rest of us to play along.

ESG, which stands for environmental, social, and governance, is a nebulous phrase that means, in effect, that a company is guided not merely by the goal of serving the public through offering goods and services its customers need, but by left-wing social causes, too.

Investment firms that are guided by ESG will, for example, refuse to invest in or do business with the fossil fuel sector even if doing so would benefit their shareholders or investors. Other ESG-guided entities push for left-wing priorities, such as “civil rights audits”—code for more focus on racial equity—even if that isn’t good for the bottom line.

Some companies will voluntarily adopt ESG in their corporate guidelines and disclosures. Others remain committed to serving the public through offering goods and services at a fair price and aren’t interested in virtue signaling.

But to woke activists and government officials, opting out of ESG is not an option. So, they force noncompliant businesses to conform to ESG by artificially creating real costs for not doing so.

They do this through litigation. They will sue companies—often with dubious or plainly meritless cases—just to create litigation risk and costs. Even if the claims are meritless, businesses face real costs measured in lawyers’ fees, litigation costs, and the risk—however small—of a monetary judgment.

As companies plan, they must consider such costs.

Activists in and out of government deliberately create these costs to make it less attractive for companies to refuse to adopt ESG priorities.

Take the case of Oracle, which was sued by investors because the company allegedly “breached its fiduciary duty by failing to have meaningful diversity on its board and workforce.” The case involved Oracle’s supposed misrepresentation of its diversity measures in public statements.

Although the case was dismissed, it cost Oracle a lot of time, effort, and money to defend against it. And that was just one case. Other companies are hit with similar lawsuits all the time.

The Oracle case illustrates a pattern in ESG litigation. Shareholders use corporate statements—in this case, that Oracle was “actively seeking women and minority candidates” for the board—and then sue the companies under the theory that the company’s failure to realize liberal policy goals renders the statements false.

Activist shareholders create a lot of these ESG litigation costs, but the federal government has even more power to do so, and it uses it.

Recently proposed Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules for investors who take ESG into account are a good example. The more companies are forced to issue disclosure statements paying tribute to woke pieties, the more ammunition activist shareholders will have to sue them. And the more disclosure statements companies are forced to make, the more likely it is that the SEC will also sue them for failing to live up to its increasingly liberal expectations.

Consider, too, the SEC’s 2022 examination priorities. According to those, when ESG-motivated investment funds vote their shares in the companies they invest in, the SEC will monitor whether those votes “align with their ESG-related disclosures.”

Given how vague those disclosures often are, that gives the SEC a lot of leeway to interpret them according to left-wing policy goals.

The SEC recently extracted a fine from Bank of New York Mellon after deciding that the bank made “misleading claims” about how it uses ESG criteria to pick stocks.

The fine was small for the bank—$1.5 million—but it likely followed a time-consuming and expensive internal investigation and blackened the bank’s name among investors.

Going forward, the bank will try to avoid reincurring those costs, but that will be hard if the SEC is interpreting and enforcing vague terms. The best move for regulated entities is to recite all the right liberal pieties and play as hard left as possible in the hope that the SEC will think of them as an ideological ally instead of a target.

In 2020, litigation cost companies $22.8 billion, which is comparable to Iceland’s entire gross domestic product. Businesses naturally, and quite rightly, try to minimize those costs. In the ESG space, the only way to do that is to further commit to and pursue ESG priorities.

Some companies, however, are just doomed. These are businesses such as fossil fuel companies that are simply never going to be popular with the activist left no matter how fervently the former endorse left-wing cultural values.

ESG activists in and out of government have not only sued those companies with dubious claims to drive up their costs, they have also tried to cut off their capital.

Trillions of dollars invested in publicly traded companies (which include fossil fuel companies such as BP, Chevron, and Shell) come from pension funds. The trustees of those funds have fiduciary obligations that require them to invest with the goal of maximizing returns for the millions of middle- and lower-income Americans who depend on them for retirement.

They generally cannot pursue “collateral” ESG priorities. That means that they cannot avoid oil companies just because they don’t like them.

They can, however, pursue a “risk-adjusted return” form of ESG investing, where they avoid companies that face litigation risk because that risk might lower the return on investment.

See where this is going?

Activist shareholders, state and local governments, and federal regulators all manufacture litigation risk to impose costs on companies that don’t align with the ESG agenda.

Investment funds can use this litigation risk—no matter how frivolous—as justification to cut off capital from disfavored companies.

Democrats in Congress, too, are trying to help the ESG racket. The House of Representatives last June passed H.R. 1187, which would have required that public companies disclose information about ESG “performance metrics” and would allow the SEC to define that term.

The creation of ESG performance metrics would mean that these often-frivolous lawsuits would be more viable because the companies’ statements would be concrete rather than vague and aspirational, as Oracle’s was.

What we’ve seen is a cycle of left-wing activism that has effectively turned the major players in the country’s economy toward liberal priorities. Many companies play along because they share those values. But even companies that aim to maximize value are now playing along because they have no choice.

Activist litigants, state attorneys general, and bureaucrats are driving up the costs of not playing woke ball.

Things are likely to get worse before they get better because this reinforcing cycle is getting more sophisticated. Additionally, the federal regulatory apparatus will be in woke hands for at least two more years, and they will make the most of that time.

Congress and the courts ought to make clear that the SEC has no authority to enforce these sorts of vague rules.

State regulators ought to make sure that pension funds in their state aren’t violating their fiduciary duties by playing the ESG game. And for states that don’t already require their pension funds to maximize investor returns, they ought to pass model legislation doing that as quickly as possible.

When it’s no longer possible to refuse to play the left’s game, it’s time for powers bigger than woke corporations to shut the game down.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/08/why-corporate-environmental-social-and-governance-enforcement-is-self-reinforcing-scam/

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

ExxonMobil Fires Back at Biden After Letter Warning Use of Emergency Powers

The Exxon Mobil Corportation fired back at President Joe Biden’s letter calling on U.S. energy producers to bring “near-term solutions” to address rising gas prices and decades-high inflation.

“In the short term, the U.S. government could enact measures often used in emergencies following hurricanes or other supply disruptions—such as waivers of Jones Act provisions and some fuel specifications to increase supplies,” the oil giant said in a news release Wednesday.

And in the longer term, the federal government “can promote investment through clear and consistent policy that supports U.S. resource development, such as regular and predictable lease sales, as well as streamlined regulatory approval and support for infrastructure such as pipelines,” according to ExxonMobil.

Notably, Biden signed an executive order in early 2021 that suspended construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have brought oil from Alberta, Canada, to the interior United States. The move was criticized by oil industry officials, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and Republicans.

In recent days, the president has increasingly blamed oil companies for allegedly gouging consumers as gas prices remain elevated at $5 per gallon. Gas prices nationwide are averaging roughly $5 a gallon, an economic burden for many Americans and a political threat for Biden’s fellow Democrats going into the midterm elections.

“The crunch that families are facing deserves immediate action,” Biden wrote in a letter this week to seven oil refiners, including Exxon. “Your companies need to work with my Administration to bring forward concrete, near-term solutions that address the crisis.”

In the letter, Biden suggested that he might use emergency powers, adding that his “administration is prepared to use all reasonable and appropriate Federal Government tools and emergency authorities to increase refinery capacity and output in the near term, and to ensure that every region of this country is appropriately supplied.”

But the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the industry, said in a statement that capacity has been diminished as the Biden administration has sought to move away from fossil fuels as part of its climate agenda. Meanwhile, several prominent White House officials continue to tout electric vehicles as a means to escape the current high gas prices despite the average cost of a new EV being about $56,000.

“While we appreciate the opportunity to open increased dialogue with the White House, the administration’s misguided policy agenda shifting away from domestic oil and natural gas has compounded inflationary pressures and added headwinds to companies’ daily efforts to meet growing energy needs while reducing emissions,” American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers said in a statement.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/exxon-mobil-fires-back-at-biden-after-letter-warning-use-of-emergency-powers_4537760.html

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

The Dark Ages for Australian energy

When the sun finally sets on the West, the English-speaking peoples will find out that they are as fragile and expendable as the starving third-world children used by aid organisation to pick pockets.

Modernity is held together by cheap energy, not the rainbow-padding nonsense of progressive politics that does little but catch fire on the frayed wires of civilisation, much like Rudd’s notorious pink batts.

Yesterday, millions of Australian homes on the east coast were told to switch off non-essential appliances after blackouts began and extended short-falls loomed. Energy suppliers cautioned the affluent Teal-heartland of Sydney’s Northern Beaches that they were at risk of losing power as temperatures plunged. Suggestions such as ‘consider how many rooms need to be heated’ were made, presumably targeted to the mansion-dwelling community who voted to put ‘Climate Change’ above energy security.

Green-tinged Queensland suffered a similar problem, with the situation so concerning that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) put in place a $300-per-megawatt-hour price cap.

As a result, everyone is turning to gas suppliers in a panic, demanding that gas companies ‘find gas’ and offer it at ‘low prices’ – or else? This would be after the government went out of its way to deny the gas industry in favour of their preferred ‘renewables’ mates. The gas industry is unsurprisingly reluctant to help out, considering they require $500-per-megawatt-hour to profit.

As a side note, the climatecouncil.org.au insists, ‘Output of oil and gas in developed nations needs to be cut by 74 per cent by 2030, with a complete phase-out by 2034.’ That is going to be tricky with renewables leaning on gas to cover the giant voids in output. Basically, if you’re still breathing, somewhat warm, and well-fed – you’re probably a burden to the climate goal.

Back in the real world, if governments and energy suppliers are begging people to turn off their toasters, it’s a good thing the Australian population ignored Labor’s demands to switch to electric vehicles or we’d be waking up to streets littered with expensive, useless cars.

The price cap has created its own problem, with the Australian Energy Regulator issuing a letter to power generators instructing them to ‘bid capacity into the market’ regardless of the cap as blackouts threaten across the country. The existence of price caps causes energy providers to withhold supply to protect revenue – which is why socialist-style intervention on market prices rarely works. The government gives ‘stuff away for free’ but businesses can’t do that or there will be nothing for tomorrow.

According to an article in The Australian, AER chair Clare Savage had this to say:

‘Recently the AER has observed that following the application of administered pricing in the NEM, generators are withdrawing available capacity from the market. This behaviour may be motivated by generators seeking to avoid the administered pricing compensation process in favour of the AEMO directions compensation process. As you know, market participants must not, by any act or omission, whether intentionally or recklessly, cause or significantly contribute to the circumstances causing a direction to be issued, without reasonable cause.’

New Energy Minister Chris Bowen has done a lot of theatrical waving of his hands, pretending that there’s ‘nothing to see here’ as the country faces an energy crisis.

‘The operator tells them there is no need to be concerned about blackouts in the immediate future,’ Bowen said, giving a speech that should never have to be made in a responsible, first-world nation. ‘Nobody should turn off any power usage that they need, that they are using for their comfort or their safety. Nobody should do that.’

When the energy grid was truly competitive, Australia had reliable, cheap, and plentiful energy. The interference of government has had disastrous consequences, with public money being tossed at ‘renewables’ to make them look more ‘profitable’ when in reality, they are propped up by taxes. Productive energy sources have been punished by severe restrictions on access, expansion, and investment. Banks have gone so far as to consider denying loans in the fossil fuel sector to keep green-themed shareholders happy.

The same people who did their best to demonise and dismantle the fossil fuel grid are now complaining about the shutdown of coal-fired plants. Well kids, this is a glimpse of the future promised by Labor, the Greens, Teals, and Liberal moderates.

There is a solution to both ‘climate woes’ and energy security in the form of nuclear energy – a technology for which Australia is uniquely placed to benefit. Labor has given a definitive ‘no’ on nuclear, almost certainly because they felt their green investment portfolio shudder in terror. The introduction of nuclear to the Australian grid erases the need for solar, wind, and battery storage – destroying profits for the ‘green economy’.

At the same time as federal Labor has been out – quite literally – begging coal-fired plants to increase their operation to stave off disaster, Western Australia Labor Premier Mark McGowan has promised to close all state-owned coal-fired plants by 2030 and gift renewables barons $4 billion in public money. He complains that the ‘glut of excess power’ produced by them is costing money – so one is left to wonder why McGowan’s idea of saving $3 billion over ten years involves spending $4 billion.

‘We’re standing at a point where to continue business as usual would lead to around $3 billion of losses by the end of the decade. Those losses either have to be covered by taxpayers or would lead to dramatically higher power bills for West Australians – while still continuing to emit higher levels of carbon emissions. Either way, it’s simply not sustainable in the long term.’

Why not just close the power stations and let the renewables sector expand on its own? Or is it not profitable without a drip attacked to the state coffers…?

No, don’t bother looking for the Liberal Party. It was former-Liberal Leader Zak Kirkup’s idea in the first place. The great news is that Western Australia doesn’t have an extension cord long enough to cross the desert, so McGowan will have nowhere to hide when it all goes horribly wrong.

All this is taking place while bored billionaires purchase coal-fired power stations for fun and shut them down unnecessarily.

The result of closing power plants is a sudden and drastic reliance on gas – of which there isn’t an infinite amount to go around. Shortages are being flagged, even if resources are expanded. Gas was meant to prop renewables up for decades, but the determination for ‘climate action right-now’ is resulting in the ridiculous culling of gas reserves which will, in turn, limit the lifespan of the renewables industry.

This is all complete madness when a few strategically placed nuclear plants could permanently solve the energy crisis with next-to-no emissions. For those who say, ‘oh nuclear is expensive!’ weren’t they telling us that ‘no expense is too much to save the world from extinction?’ We’re not told the total green price tag, but subsidies for renewables alone were set at $11.6 billion in 2021.

The answer is sitting in front of Australia, but governments, the energy industry, and mining companies have no interest in pursuing nuclear until they have dug up and sold every last dollar from other resources that are set to be devalued when the ‘Nuclear Age’ arrives.

Energy supply doesn’t care much for virtue-signalling politics or the ambitions of career politicians. It is a world of engineering absolutes, brick walls, and fail points. Reliable, stable power is essential to sustain the lives of millions of people where even short-lived blackouts pose a serious threat.

Hippy colonies can get away with a few cold nights or a failed market garden by collapsing around a campfire for a bit of weed-induced ‘Kumbaya’ followed by a sneaky trip to the local shops. When the same thing happens to a city, panic takes hold. Investors pull out. Businesses close. The elderly freeze to death.

Covid was not an emergency. Sustained blackouts and a ruined power grid is an emergency.

Any government that chooses to play politics with energy is reckless to the point of criminal. Finally (and just for fun) what happens if Australia finally gets its 100 per cent magnificent wind and solar grid backed up by battery power during the night when there’s no wind?

Uh, blackouts…

https://spectator.com.au/2022/06/the-dark-ages-for-australian-energy/

Sunday, June 19, 2022

MSNBC Warns 'Less Than a Decade' To Save the Planet

There have been many such prophecies. All have failed

Against the backdrop of extreme weather across the country, Chris Jansing welcomed Penn State University’s Michael Mann to declare that “we have less than a decade” to save the planet.

Jansing teed Mann up quoting President Biden and wondering, “So, let me ask you specifically about what the president just said, that ‘the science tells us the window for action is rapidly narrowing.’ How rapidly and how narrow is it?”

Repeating Biden’s words, Mann went full Doomsday prophet, “Rapid and narrow. We have less than a decade now to bring carbon emissions down globally by 50% if we are to remain on a path that keeps warming below that, sort of, catastrophic one-and-a-half degree Celsius, three degree Fahrenheit warming of the planet where the things that we’re starting to see now become much worse and we get extremes that we haven't seen before and so that’s not someplace we want—we want-- to go.”

For Mann, there is still some good news, “We want to prevent the problem from getting worse and that means decarbonizing our economy rapidly. That means we need legislation and there’s still an opportunity to pass climate legislation this term in Congress, if we can, you know, get a few stragglers to get behind some—some--, you know, basic policies that would incentivize renewable energy that would begin to defund infrastructure for fossil fuels.”

People paying over $5 per gallon might have something to say about that, but Mann didn’t care, “These are things we need to do now. We can't wait, because we have to get on that path immediately if we are to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.”

Starting to bring the segment to a close, Jansing hoped recent disasters could spur change, “We've only got 30 seconds, but I have to ask you, do you think that because of the economic impact, not to mention lives lost because of the extreme weather conditions, governments that have been slow to act, members of Congress who have been slow to act, might actually take more action?”

Mann replied that was his hope and used gun control as his analogy, “Well, let's hope so. We never thought that we would see any possibility of any sort of common sense gun legislation, and we're seeing that now because there's a demand on the part of the people, because people are crying out and demanding their policy makers to do something. We need to see the same thing with climate. We need to demand that our policymakers act now before it is too late.”

Just once it would be nice if a host could ask Mann or his associates about some of the past prophecies that have failed to come true, but that would require some criticism of Mann, which he does not take well.

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alex-christy/2022/06/17/msnbc-warns-less-decade-save-planet

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

Moment furious Italian motorists drag Extinction Rebellion protesters away to let traffic pass after activists staged a sit-in blockade of one of Rome's busiest roads

How come Italians are the only ones with any guts?

This is the moment Extinction Rebellion activists were forcibly removed by furious Italian motorists after they blocked a busy motorway in Rome on Thursday.

Demonstrating over environmental issues, the protesters sat in a row across Rome's Raccordo - the city's main ring-road and one of its busiest - holding banners.

A video shot from the side of the two-lane road showed the demonstrators using road-block protest tactics also used in Britain, causing a huge traffic jam to snake back as far as the eye could see, with no police officers or vehicles in sight.

In response, irate Italian motorists at the front of the queue jumped out of their vehicles to take action - dragging the protesters across the tarmac and dumping them on to the side of the road.

One man ripped an orange banner from the hands of the Extinction Rebellion activists and threw it over the side of the motorway barrier. A woman, dressed in a summer dress while still carrying her handbag, tore a second sign from their grasp.

After removing the banners, a second man joined the first in forcibly dragging the protesters by their arms across the tarmac to the side of the road, making enough of a gap for several vehicles to get through and past the demonstration.

However, as the first man was dragging the remaining protesters off the road, the activists he had first removed saw an opportunity and ran back into the middle of the road, and in front of the on-coming traffic - only to sit down again with their banner.

With the traffic again being blocked, the man grabbed one of the female protesters by the hair and dragged her again to the side of the road. This did not deter her, however, as she quickly shuffled back in front of the traffic.

According to Italian publication Corriere Dello Sport, the young protesters were part of an Extinction Rebellion off-shoot group called the 'Last Generation' campaign.

The group is calling for the end of all fossil fuel extraction projects, and is demanding that Italy does not restart its coal plants - and instead develop more wind and solar energy sources.

Britain has been grappling with similar protests in recent years, with Extinction Rebellion also wreaking havoc on public transport. Another group - Insulate Britain - have used the same road-block tactics as the activists in Italy.

Legal action has been taken against the protesters, and injunctions have been taken out to deter activists with potential prison sentences.

The video showed the first man - wearing sunglasses, shorts and a T-Shirt - shouting in the face of the female activist who had sat back down in the middle of the road.

This time, he picked her up and threw her to the side of the road. In the meantime, the second man was able to make a gap in the activists long enough for more cars and trucks to drive through and away from the scene.

By the end of the video, however, the protesters are shown persisting with their efforts, blocking at least half of the road - again with their orange banner.

Corriere Dello Sport reported that the protest was eventually broke up with the arrival of local police, the Carabinieri (federal police) and the Digos (special forces) - with the protesters being taken into custody.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10926951/Moment-furious-Italian-motorists-drag-Extinction-Rebellion-activists-road-Rome.html

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

UK Car industry in shock and fuel prices climb as government scraps all grants for electric vehicles

Motoring groups have criticised the government’s decision to scrap subsidies for newly purchased electric vehicles (EVs), fearing it could dissuade buyers from entering the market.

In a shocking blow the car industry, the Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that £1,500 grants for purchases of new electric cars that cost under £32,000 have been ditched.

The DfT argued the “success” of the Plug-in Car Grant means the Government will now “refocus” the funding to encourage users of other vehicles to make the switch to EVs.

Existing applications for the grant “will continue to be honoured”, the DfT added.

Transport minister Trudy Harrison said: “Government funding must always be invested where it has the highest impact if that success story is to continue.”

“Having successfully kickstarted the electric car market, we now want to use Plug-in Grants to match that success across other vehicle types, from taxis to delivery vans and everything in between, to help make the switch to zero emission travel cheaper and easier.”

She argued the Government continues to invest record amounts in the transition to EVs – with £2.5bn injected since 2020 – and that Downing Street has set the most ambitious phase-out dates for new diesel and petrol sales of any major country.

Downing Street has targeted 2030 for the phasing out of new petrol and diesel car sales in the UK.

However, motoring groups have suggested this target will be difficult to achieve without the support of grants;

The AA has slammed the decision, warning that many motorists being forced to wait for a new EV due to global supply constraints will lose out.

Its president Edmund King said the grants were “essential for many drivers making the switch from petrol and diesel.”

He said: “The plug has been pulled at the wrong time on this important grant before many users, still waiting for delayed EVs due to global shortages, have made the change. Drivers, and indeed many fleets, planning to make the switch to EV, may now back out until they can find more cash.”

Rival motoring group RAC also questioned the move, raising concerns lack of financial support for aspiring EV owners could stifle the UK’s green ambitions.

Head of policy Nicholas Lyes said: “The UK’s adoption of electric cars is so far impressive but in order to make them accessible to everyone, we need prices to fall – having more on the road is one important way of making this happen, so we’re disappointed the Government has chosen to end the grant at this point. If costs remain too high, the ambition of getting most people into electric cars will be stifled.”

Sales of fully electric new cars have risen from fewer than 1,000 in 2011 to nearly 100,000 in the first five months of 2022/

This suggests EVs are finally breaking into the mainstream, with sales outstripping diesel vehicles last year.

Petrol prices reach new heights as CMA reviews retail markets
The scrapping of EV grants comes amid skyrocketing forecourt prices, with petrol prices climbing to new highs in Tuesday’s trading.

The average price of a litre of petrol at UK forecourts reached a new record of 185.4p yesterday -an increase of 6.9p in just a week.

This follows a 10p hike in petrol prices in May.

Concerns over prices at the pumps has led to the Competition and Markets Authority launching a review of the retail market, with Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng raising concerns that the five pence fuel duty cuts are not being passed on to consumers.

Tom Hatton, head of product management at analytics group Kalibrate told City A.M. petrol retailers are not engaging in wholesale profiteering despite record forecourt prices,

Instead, he suggested fuel vendors were ramping up prices for consumers in line with higher wholesale costs more quickly than they did in the past, with retailers more cautious amid soaring oil prices and geopolitical volatility.

He argued: “We have not seen cumulative rises like this for years and years.”

https://www.cityam.com/breaking-car-industry-in-shock-as-department-for-transport-scraps-all-grants-for-electric-vehicles/

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

Australia: NSW will need Narrabri gas mine says minister in Leftist Federal government

Pleasing realism

Resources Minister Madeleine King has warned of a bigger energy crisis in future years if new gas fields like the Narrabri project in northern NSW do not go ahead, declaring that critics of the project should accept the need for gas as part of the transition from coal to renewable energy.

Warning of gas shortfalls that could hurt industry and households, the new federal minister said Narrabri should proceed if it met environmental safeguards and all the gas should flow to the domestic market.

Santos wants to produce the first gas from the controversial project in 2026 and says it could sell the gas “two or three times over” on the domestic market because demand is so strong, but the company must gain state and federal approvals for gas production and a pipeline to Sydney.

The gas field is opposed by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, the Climate Council, the Gomeroi traditional owners and others, while Greens leader Adam Bandt wants federal Labor to halt all new gas and coal projects.

King said she hoped the project would go ahead but understood it had to pass further regulatory checks, including challenges under native title legislation.

“If Narrabri meets all the environmental standards, and by all accounts it does, then it makes sense for it to go ahead,” King said in her first interview with the Herald and The Age since taking office.

“It is an important gas reserve that will help the population of NSW address a future power crisis. It avoids a crisis, is what it does, because it means more gas closer to your systems.”

While the NSW government has backed the Santos plan in principle, the project is subject to independent environmental approvals while the government also examines a separate plan to build an import terminal in Port Kembla to supply gas that has been shipped from Western Australia.

King emphasised that she wanted to “decarbonise” the economy by shifting to renewables but had to deal with household and industry demand “and accept some of the realities of our current energy mix”.

She said demand for gas would fall over time and she wanted Australia to reach net zero emissions by 2050 with Labor policies to shift to renewables and invest in the electricity grid, but she said gas was part of the transition because it would replace dirtier emissions from coal-fired power.

“I understand people’s concerns about there being a lack of determination around meeting net zero emissions and a lack of an energy plan and that has been because of the climate wars in this country in the last 10 or 15 years,” she said.

“I have a lot of sympathy for it and I’m as angry as anyone about the inaction that has allowed the current crisis to be upon us.

“But everyone needs to understand, especially I think in some of the southern states, that right now when you flick on your light switch or have your dishwasher running or turn on your telly, for the most part, that moves a turbine in a coal-fired generator ... you’re using more coal, which is high in emissions.

“While the government is now bringing in an energy plan which will get working on renewables, and that’s our very determined ambition, gas is the transition fuel that is able to bring down emissions in the short term.

“So it’s not a perfect answer. We’d all love to switch straight from coal to renewables. But it’s simply not possible,” she said.

“So I guess for the good people of NSW, they need to consider what they really want. And I imagine they still want to be able to turn on their television and keep their fridge running.

“What is the current means to be able to do it and be on a downward trajectory with emissions? Well, it’s via gas on the way to a proper, solid, reliable transmission system that allows renewables and the storage of renewables to operate into the long term.

“We’ve got a long way to go, actually, because of the lack of investment over the last 10 or 15 years and you can’t switch on investment like we switch on lights.

“And for those people that will get angry at me for what I’ve said, I just want to let them know that I want to clean and decarbonised world as well. And that’s what we’re working towards. It might not be on the same timeline as others. But we are all going through the same goal.”

Santos has promised in the past that all the gas from Narrabri would serve the domestic market if the project gained approval, making this part of its formal submission to the Independent Planning Commission.

“Santos has committed to providing all this gas to the domestic market and agreed to accept a condition to this effect on any petroleum production lease granted for the project under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991,” the company wrote.

Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher confirmed the pledge in an interview on Sky News on June 8.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nsw-will-need-narrabri-gas-resources-minister-20220614-p5atlb.html

Friday, June 17, 2022

How millions of lives can be saved if the US acts now on climate

Utter rubbish. Warming would SAVE lives. Winter is the time of dying, not summer

The rapidly shrinking window of opportunity for the US to pass significant climate legislation will have mortal, as well as political, stakes. Millions of lives around the world will be saved, or lost, depending on whether America manages to propel itself towards a future without planet-heating emissions.

For the first time, researchers have calculated exactly how many people the US could save by acting on the climate crisis. A total of 7.4 million lives around the world will be saved over this century if the US manages to cut its emissions to net zero by 2050, according to the analysis.

The financial savings would be enormous, too, with a net zero America able to save the world $3.7tn in costs to adapt to the rising heat. As the world’s second largest polluter of greenhouse gases, the US and its political vagaries will in large part decide how many people in faraway countries will be subjected to deadly heat, as well as endure punishing storms, floods, drought and other consequences of the climate emergency.

“Each additional ton of carbon has these global impacts – there is a tangible difference in terms of death rates,” said Hannah Hess, associate director at the research group Rhodium, which is part of the Climate Impact Lab consortium that conducted the study. “There’s a sense of frustration over the lack of progress at the national level on climate but every action at state or local level makes a difference in terms of lives.”

The lab’s new “lives saved calculator” uses a model of historical death records and localized temperature projections to come up with an estimate for the number of lives saved if emissions are eliminated. The analysis just looks at lives at risk from extreme heat, meaning the true climate toll would be higher due to other growing threats such as flooding and strong storms.

Just 10 US states could save 3.7 million lives worldwide by cutting their emissions to net zero, largely due to their high consumption of fossil fuels. Texas alone could save 1.1 million lives. But even action in less populous states would have a benefit: Idaho is capable of saving about 68,000 lives, Kansas could save 126,000 lives and Hawaii could save about 16,000 lives.

Hess said that rising heat this century will cause an uneven distribution of deaths around the world, mainly focused on areas such as north and west Africa, as well as south Asia. India and Pakistan recently endured a brutal heatwave of temperatures reaching 122F (50C) in some places, which killed several hundred people and was made 30 times more likely by the climate crisis.

“People have different abilities to adapt depending on the resources they have to protect themselves from extreme heat,” said Hess. “The hottest places don’t all face equally elevated risk of death; it’s closely tied to economic growth. Within the US there are impacts in places like southern California and Texas, but the US is really eclipsed by poorer regions of the world when it comes to these sort of deaths.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/16/us-climate-crisis-millions-lives-saved

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

Climate change may NOT kill polar bears: Scientists discover a population THRIVING in the ice-free sea as the animals adapt to rising temperatures

While polar bears are often used as the poster child for climate change, a new study has cast doubt on whether rising temperatures will really kill off the animals.

Researchers from the University of Washington have discovered a new population of polar bears thriving in the ice-free sea in Southeast Greenland.

The population is genetically distinct and uniquely adapted to the ice-free environment – and could help to shed light on the future of the species amid rising temperatures.

'Polar bears are threatened by sea ice loss due to climate change,' said Dr Kristin Laidre, who led the study.

'This new population gives us some insight into how the species might persist into the future.

'But I don't think glacier habitat is going to support huge numbers of polar bears. There's just not enough of it. We still expect to see large declines in polar bears across the Arctic under climate change.'

The population has access to sea ice for four months of the year – from February to late May.

During the other eight months, the polar bears hunt seals from chunks of freshwater ice breaking off the Greenland Ice Sheet.

'The marine-terminating glaciers in Southeast Greenland are a fairly unique environment,' said co-author Twila Moon.

'These types of glaciers do exist in other places in the Arctic, but the combination of the fjord shapes, the high production of glacier ice and the very big reservoir of ice that is available from the Greenland Ice Sheet is what currently provides a steady supply of glacier ice.'

Based on historical records and Indigenous knowledge, the researchers knew there were some bears in Southeast Greenland.

However, until now, the region hasn't been studied in detail because of its unpredictable weather, jagged mountains, and heavy snowfall.

'We wanted to survey this region because we didn't know much about the polar bears in Southeast Greenland, but we never expected to find a new subpopulation living there,' Dr Laidre said.

'We just didn't know how special they were.'

In the study, the team combined 36 years of movement, genetic and demographic data to assess the population for the first time.

Their results showed that this group is comprised of a few hundred bears and is genetically distinct from any of the 19 previously known polar bear populations.

'They are the most genetically isolated population of polar bears anywhere on the planet,' said co-author Professor Beth Shapiro.

'We know that this population has been living separately from other polar bear populations for at least several hundred years, and that their population size throughout this time has remained small.'

Body measurements suggest that the adult females are smaller than other regions, and have fewer cubs, which may reflect the challenge of finding mates in the complex environment, according to the team.

Satellite tracking of adult females within the population shows that the bears are homebodies – unlike most other polar bears, who travel far over sea ice to hunt.

This group walks on ice inside protected fjords, or scramble over mountains to reach neighbouring fjords over the Greenland Ice Sheet, according to the team.

Of the 27 bears tracked, half accidentally floated an average of 120 miles south on small ice floes caught in the East Greenland coastal current, before hopping off and walking home on land.

'In a sense, these bears provide a glimpse into how Greenland's bears may fare under future climate scenarios,' Dr Laidre said.

'The sea ice conditions in Southeast Greenland today resemble what's predicted for Northeast Greenland by late this century.'

The population has access to sea ice for four months of the year – from February to late May.

During the other eight months, the polar bears hunt seals from chunks of freshwater ice breaking off the Greenland Ice Sheet.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10926337/Is-climate-change-really-killing-polar-bears-Scientists-new-population-ice-free-sea.html

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

The Revenge Of The ‘Fossil Fuels’

Energy prices across the board — from thermal coal and natural gas to diesel and gasoline — have surged over the past year and have only been accentuated by the financial sanctions on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

On Monday, Goldman Sachs published a report that revised its oil price outlook higher (again), raising its peak summer price forecast for Brent crude from $125/barrel to $140/barrel. But it is not only crude oil prices that are likely to remain stronger for longer.

Countries around the world are struggling with energy shortages and price spikes as energy security and affordability are propelled to the policy centre-stage after Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine.

Yet it would be myopic to view surging energy prices merely as a result of the Russian invasion.

The recent price spikes in fuels are a cumulative result of government policies in the West that have focused obsessively with the speculative, model-based forecasts of the climate impacts of carbon emissions.

The climate industrial complex has vilified ‘fossil fuels’ over the past few decades in the name of a presumed impending climate apocalypse. It starved the oil, gas and coal sectors of capital investments and diverted trillions of dollars of public funds to subsidize wind, solar and electric vehicle industries.

What Stranded Resources?

Mark Carney, the “rock star” ex-central banker, is a member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum and became the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance in 2019.

He was appointed finance advisor for the UK presidency of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference in Glasgow held in November. Mr. Carney spent the last few years persuading the world’s financial institutions that ‘fossil fuels’ – accounting for over 80 per cent of global primary energy supply – are “stranded assets” on a one-way trajectory to zero value as the world races to “net zero (carbon emissions) by 2050”.

Mr. Carney isn’t the only illustrious professional on the “fossil-fuels-are-stranded-resources” bandwagon.

A short list would include U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, BlackRock BLK -2.4% chief executive Larry Fink and Fatih Birol, the Executive Director of the International Energy Agency.

They assert an “existential threat” of ‘climate change’ caused by the combustion of ‘fossil fuels’. These leaders in finance and public policy circles are joined in the popular media by climate Jeremiahs such as Al Gore, Bill McKibben and Prince Charles who have used their bully pulpits to encourage divestment from fossil fuel companies.

One year ago, ExxonMobil gained much media attention as it was forced to concede three board seats to climate activist investor Engine No. 1 in the industry’s biggest and most closely watched corporate contest.

Critics of the company’s business strategy railed against the company’s “lack of attention” to alarmist climate concerns. The company had fallen out of favour of the “Woke Inc.” Wall Street hedge funds and was ditched from the Dow Jones index in 2020.

And now, the company is the darling of Wall Street as it spews cash for shareholders. According to analyst Stephen Richardson cited by a Bloomberg piece on ExxonMobil’s remarkable turnaround in its stock price, “every conceivable headwind has become a tailwind” given the “structural deficit” in crude oil markets.

The Green Pain Is “Worth It”

But the revenge of the ‘fossil fuels’ is hardly restricted to ExxonMobil’s resurgent stock value. It is no small irony that a vast swath of the U.S. — from the Great Lakes to the West Coast, covering some two-thirds of the world’s richest country — is at risk of blackouts this summer according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).

As expected, progressive commentators and NERC itself blame this on predicted extreme heat and drought. Yet the US has had extreme weather before.

After decades of shutting down reliable (i.e. dispatchable power 24/7) coal and nuclear generating plants and replacing them with erratic, weather-dependent solar and wind power, the US national grid is now destabilized and vulnerable to surges in demand and supply.

Last year’s near-catastrophic blackouts in Texas after a sudden cold snap is illustrative. As one editorial of a major national newspaper put it after NERC’s warning: “Summer is around the corner, and we suggest you prepare by buying an emergency generator, if you can find one in stock… Welcome to the ‘green energy transition’.”

Europe and the UK, global leaders in the “energy transition” efforts, also face potential blackouts as aggressive retirements of nuclear, coal and gas-fuelled plants have been replaced by unreliable renewables over the past two decades.

A shortage of gas this winter could leave six million homes in the UK without power, the UK government recently warned.

True to “the revenge of fossil fuels” theme, the government has asked coal power stations it had previously ordered to close down to remain open.

As if putting salt into an open wound, the IEA’s executive director Fatih Birol warned that Europe could be forced to start rationing energy this winter especially if the winter is cold and China’s economy rebounds.

This is the same person who announced the astonishing Net Zero “roadmap” — published by the IEA with much fanfare in May 2021 — which called for the global cessation of all new investments in ‘fossil fuels’.

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

Australia: Green lunacy

He mentions storage but shows no awareness of its monstrous cost if it were to replace much generating

Chris Bowen has furiously dismissed suggestions that prolonging coal-fired power is the solution to Australia's energy crisis

The Energy Minister Minister fired-up in a press conference when he was challenged by a journalist about the unreliability of renewable energy.

One of the reasons given for the National Electricity Market suspension on Wednesday was a lack of wind and solar power.

The journalist asked: 'Isn't part of the supply problem the fact that you cannot direct wind into the market?

'The only thing you can do is to keep the coal-fired generators going to their end of life and to fix the ones that you have got now and include them in the capacity market, isn't that the short-term fix?'

Minister Bowen said the solution is to rapidly invest in renewable energy and storage - not more unreliable coal power.

'The problem is there is not enough investment in renewable energy. There hasn't been enough investment in storage,' he said.

'Yes, you can say the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. The rain doesn't always fall either but we can store the water and we can store renewable energy if we have the investment.

'That investment has been lacking for the last decade. That is the problem.'

Mr Bowen said the current crisis has 'largely' been caused by unexpected outages at coal-fired power stations which are nearing the end of their lifespans.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton cautioned Labor against moving into renewables too quickly, risking further power shortages down the track.

'Labor is rushing toward a new system when it's not at a sensible pace,' he told 2GB.

'They went into the election promising electricity bills would be cheaper and that is not going to happen.'

Last night hospitals were ordered to reduce electricity use and millions of people urged not to use basic appliances.

The potential for mass blackouts has increased with about 1800MW of coal-fired power not operating in Queensland and 1200MW of capacity offline in the states of NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

The Tomago aluminium smelter in NSW, the country's biggest electricity user, was also forced to cut production to reduce the chance of a blackout.

NSW Treasurer Matt Kean on Wednesday evening begged residents not to run dishwashers until late at night, and Sydney hospital staff were ordered to conserve power in all non-clinical settings.

'This is the result of two-and-a-half decades of policy failures by all sides of politics,' Victorian state Liberal MP Tim Smith said on Wednesday night. 'Like a third world country, we are rationing power in the two first weeks of winter.'

Former Victorian Liberal Party President Michael Kroger said Australia had become 'an international laughing stock' over the crisis.

'We've got more uranium, oil, gas, gold, diamonds, whatever. We are the most energy rich country on the globe,' he told Sky News on Wednesday night. 'We're exploding with natural resources, yet we have an energy crisis. What a farce.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10921777/Energy-minister-Chris-Bowen-loses-journalist-energy-crisis.html

Thursday, June 16, 2022

UK: Cost to fuel a truck is up £20,000 a year, says haulage boss

The RAC has warned petrol and diesel could reach £2 a litre
Soaring fuel prices have put the haulage industry in crisis with the cost of running one lorry up £20,000 on last year, a freight boss has said.

Lesley O'Brien, director of Freight Link Europe, said "pretty much everything you buy comes on the back of a truck" so customers were paying more.

Her comments come as the RAC said it now costs £98 to fill the average car with petrol and £101.86 with diesel.

The motoring group has called for "radical government intervention".

Latest figures from the RAC show the average cost of a litre of petrol rose from 177.88p on Sunday to 178.50p on Monday - a rise of 0.6p in 24 hours.

Over the same period, the average diesel price rose from 185.01p to 185.20p.

RAC fuel spokesperson Simon Williams said: "Drivers need to brace themselves for average fuel prices rocketing to £2 a litre which would mean a fill-up would rise to an unbelievable £110.

"We strongly urge the government to take drastic action to help soften the impact for drivers from these never-before-seen pump prices."

Motorists have been hit by record pump prices since Russia's invasion of Ukraine led to an increase in the cost of oil because of supply fears.

In March, the government cut fuel duty by 5p a litre. It said this would save a car driver on average £100 a year, a van driver £200 and hauliers £1,500.

In some circumstances, haulage firms and other transport businesses can reclaim 100% of VAT on fuel paid for business purposes via HMRC.

Ms O'Brien told the BBC's Today programme: "This certainly is a crisis as we've seen fuel prices escalate over the last year by 50% and no sight of a stop, so we absolutely as an industry need to keep on top of this.

"As a country we need to understand we need to support our transport industry which is the infrastructure of the whole economy," she said.

Ms O'Brien said fuel was a third of her business' running costs. This time last year, it would cost about £41,000 a year in fuel for an average articulated lorry at her company, but with prices soaring it now costs more than £61,000 a year.

She explained that her company added a fuel surcharge to its bills, to cover fluctuating prices.

"But never before has it been so high," she said. "As an example, to run one of my artic vehicles is now costing me £20,000 more per year than in did last year."

'It's just crazy'

Another firm, Countrywide Coaches told the BBC it had had to sell two coaches due to the rising price of diesel.

Director Olivia Bell from Countrywide Coaches said she had tried to mitigate rising diesel costs by putting up prices for some of her school customers - but parents ended up pulling their children off the school trip altogether.

Her family-run company is now down to 14 coaches, catering to schools, private and military staff trips.

"Since September's price rise, we are paying an extra £2,000 per week in fuel costs. So we are hitting Plan B by selling coaches," she added.

Rod McKenzie, from the Road Haulage Association (RHA), said: "Fuel represents over a third of a trucks operating costs yet profit margins are between 1% and 2%.

"To put this into perspective, the average 44 tonne truck gets less than two miles from a litre of fuel. That's why every penny increase makes a massive difference and as such, every penny must be made to count."

Some 30% of fuel costs are duty taxes and the RHA wants the government to return this to "essential users" such as hauliers and coach operators. They could then lower their prices to customers, the RHA said.

Ms O'Brien said: "If we help the haulage industry and we have an essential user rebate we will help everybody because pretty much everything you buy comes on the back of a truck and we will be able to pass that on to the end user."

The spiralling cost of fuel had added to pressures including a driver shortage, subsequently high salaries and an increase in companies' national insurance payments, she said.

On top of that there was an increase in lorry maintenance costs and a shortage of new lorries and parts due to a global shortage of chips.

Meanwhile, a plan to name and shame petrol stations that fail to pass on a cut in fuel duty is "still in the works", a government source has told BBC News.

A formal announcement had been expected last week, but it is understood officials at the Department for Transport are yet to finalise the policy

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61716039?mc_cid=c5440e55b9&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Germany’s Fridays For Future Spokesperson: “We’re Planning How To Blow Up” African Oil Pipeline!

Rich, privileged (white) eco-fanatic says her group is thinking about “how to ” blow up huge African oil pipeline!

Most of Europe’s climate activists come from rich families, who lavish in all the amenities the fossil fuel economy offers. No exception to this are Sweden’s Greta Thunberg, and Luisa “Longhaul” Neubauer of Germany.

Not only are they spoiled rich, leading pampered lives, but they’re also becoming dangerously fanatic it appears and even feel entitled to tell poor countries what they can and cannot have.

Recently Longhaul Luisa, spokesperson for Fridays for Future Germany, posted Sunday on Instagram with her Fridays for Future mates joking how right now they are planning on how to blow up” an African oil pipeline that will immensely improve the lives of among the world’s most needy.

“Of course we are thinking about how to blow up” the longest crude oil pipeline in the world, she professed on Instagram on Sunday.

Much needed Uganda-Tanzania pipeline

In the posted video, Neubauer is referring to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The EACOP is currently under construction and, once completed, will transport crude oil from Uganda to Tanzania. It will be around 1,400 kilometers long and deliver around 216,000 barrels of oil per day.

We assume that Luisa and her crazed FFF radical group would be content to see poor Africans be denied even just a tiny fraction of the pampered life she herself is privileged to follow. She tells of the pipeline in the video: We’re going to stop that one.”

https://notrickszone.com/2022/06/14/germanys-fridays-for-future-spokesperson-were-planning-how-to-blow-up-african-oil-pipeline/

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

UK Car industry in shock and fuel prices climb as government scraps all grants for electric vehicles

Motoring groups have criticised the government’s decision to scrap subsidies for newly purchased electric vehicles (EVs), fearing it could dissuade buyers from entering the market.

In a shocking blow the car industry, the Department for Transport (DfT) has revealed that £1,500 grants for purchases of new electric cars that cost under £32,000 have been ditched.

The DfT argued the “success” of the Plug-in Car Grant means the Government will now “refocus” the funding to encourage users of other vehicles to make the switch to EVs.

Existing applications for the grant “will continue to be honoured”, the DfT added.

Transport minister Trudy Harrison said: “Government funding must always be invested where it has the highest impact if that success story is to continue.”

“Having successfully kickstarted the electric car market, we now want to use Plug-in Grants to match that success across other vehicle types, from taxis to delivery vans and everything in between, to help make the switch to zero emission travel cheaper and easier.”

She argued the Government continues to invest record amounts in the transition to EVs – with £2.5bn injected since 2020 – and that Downing Street has set the most ambitious phase-out dates for new diesel and petrol sales of any major country.

Downing Street has targeted 2030 for the phasing out of new petrol and diesel car sales in the UK.

However, motoring groups have suggested this target will be difficult to achieve without the support of grants;

The AA has slammed the decision, warning that many motorists being forced to wait for a new EV due to global supply constraints will lose out.

Its president Edmund King said the grants were “essential for many drivers making the switch from petrol and diesel.”

He said: “The plug has been pulled at the wrong time on this important grant before many users, still waiting for delayed EVs due to global shortages, have made the change. Drivers, and indeed many fleets, planning to make the switch to EV, may now back out until they can find more cash.”

Rival motoring group RAC also questioned the move, raising concerns lack of financial support for aspiring EV owners could stifle the UK’s green ambitions.

Head of policy Nicholas Lyes said: “The UK’s adoption of electric cars is so far impressive but in order to make them accessible to everyone, we need prices to fall – having more on the road is one important way of making this happen, so we’re disappointed the Government has chosen to end the grant at this point. If costs remain too high, the ambition of getting most people into electric cars will be stifled.”

Sales of fully electric new cars have risen from fewer than 1,000 in 2011 to nearly 100,000 in the first five months of 2022/

This suggests EVs are finally breaking into the mainstream, with sales outstripping diesel vehicles last year.

Petrol prices reach new heights as CMA reviews retail markets
The scrapping of EV grants comes amid skyrocketing forecourt prices, with petrol prices climbing to new highs in Tuesday’s trading.

The average price of a litre of petrol at UK forecourts reached a new record of 185.4p yesterday -an increase of 6.9p in just a week.

This follows a 10p hike in petrol prices in May.

Concerns over prices at the pumps has led to the Competition and Markets Authority launching a review of the retail market, with Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng raising concerns that the five pence fuel duty cuts are not being passed on to consumers.

Tom Hatton, head of product management at analytics group Kalibrate told City A.M. petrol retailers are not engaging in wholesale profiteering despite record forecourt prices,

Instead, he suggested fuel vendors were ramping up prices for consumers in line with higher wholesale costs more quickly than they did in the past, with retailers more cautious amid soaring oil prices and geopolitical volatility.

He argued: “We have not seen cumulative rises like this for years and years.”

https://www.cityam.com/breaking-car-industry-in-shock-as-department-for-transport-scraps-all-grants-for-electric-vehicles/

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

The Dark Ages for Australian energy

When the sun finally sets on the West, the English-speaking peoples will find out that they are as fragile and expendable as the starving third-world children used by aid organisation to pick pockets.

Modernity is held together by cheap energy, not the rainbow-padding nonsense of progressive politics that does little but catch fire on the frayed wires of civilisation, much like Rudd’s notorious pink batts.

Yesterday, millions of Australian homes on the east coast were told to switch off non-essential appliances after blackouts began and extended short-falls loomed. Energy suppliers cautioned the affluent Teal-heartland of Sydney’s Northern Beaches that they were at risk of losing power as temperatures plunged. Suggestions such as ‘consider how many rooms need to be heated’ were made, presumably targeted to the mansion-dwelling community who voted to put ‘Climate Change’ above energy security.

Green-tinged Queensland suffered a similar problem, with the situation so concerning that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) put in place a $300-per-megawatt-hour price cap.

As a result, everyone is turning to gas suppliers in a panic, demanding that gas companies ‘find gas’ and offer it at ‘low prices’ – or else? This would be after the government went out of its way to deny the gas industry in favour of their preferred ‘renewables’ mates. The gas industry is unsurprisingly reluctant to help out, considering they require $500-per-megawatt-hour to profit.

As a side note, the climatecouncil.org.au insists, ‘Output of oil and gas in developed nations needs to be cut by 74 per cent by 2030, with a complete phase-out by 2034.’ That is going to be tricky with renewables leaning on gas to cover the giant voids in output. Basically, if you’re still breathing, somewhat warm, and well-fed – you’re probably a burden to the climate goal.

Back in the real world, if governments and energy suppliers are begging people to turn off their toasters, it’s a good thing the Australian population ignored Labor’s demands to switch to electric vehicles or we’d be waking up to streets littered with expensive, useless cars.

The price cap has created its own problem, with the Australian Energy Regulator issuing a letter to power generators instructing them to ‘bid capacity into the market’ regardless of the cap as blackouts threaten across the country. The existence of price caps causes energy providers to withhold supply to protect revenue – which is why socialist-style intervention on market prices rarely works. The government gives ‘stuff away for free’ but businesses can’t do that or there will be nothing for tomorrow.

According to an article in The Australian, AER chair Clare Savage had this to say:

‘Recently the AER has observed that following the application of administered pricing in the NEM, generators are withdrawing available capacity from the market. This behaviour may be motivated by generators seeking to avoid the administered pricing compensation process in favour of the AEMO directions compensation process. As you know, market participants must not, by any act or omission, whether intentionally or recklessly, cause or significantly contribute to the circumstances causing a direction to be issued, without reasonable cause.’

New Energy Minister Chris Bowen has done a lot of theatrical waving of his hands, pretending that there’s ‘nothing to see here’ as the country faces an energy crisis.

‘The operator tells them there is no need to be concerned about blackouts in the immediate future,’ Bowen said, giving a speech that should never have to be made in a responsible, first-world nation. ‘Nobody should turn off any power usage that they need, that they are using for their comfort or their safety. Nobody should do that.’

When the energy grid was truly competitive, Australia had reliable, cheap, and plentiful energy. The interference of government has had disastrous consequences, with public money being tossed at ‘renewables’ to make them look more ‘profitable’ when in reality, they are propped up by taxes. Productive energy sources have been punished by severe restrictions on access, expansion, and investment. Banks have gone so far as to consider denying loans in the fossil fuel sector to keep green-themed shareholders happy.

The same people who did their best to demonise and dismantle the fossil fuel grid are now complaining about the shutdown of coal-fired plants. Well kids, this is a glimpse of the future promised by Labor, the Greens, Teals, and Liberal moderates.

There is a solution to both ‘climate woes’ and energy security in the form of nuclear energy – a technology for which Australia is uniquely placed to benefit. Labor has given a definitive ‘no’ on nuclear, almost certainly because they felt their green investment portfolio shudder in terror. The introduction of nuclear to the Australian grid erases the need for solar, wind, and battery storage – destroying profits for the ‘green economy’.

At the same time as federal Labor has been out – quite literally – begging coal-fired plants to increase their operation to stave off disaster, Western Australia Labor Premier Mark McGowan has promised to close all state-owned coal-fired plants by 2030 and gift renewables barons $4 billion in public money. He complains that the ‘glut of excess power’ produced by them is costing money – so one is left to wonder why McGowan’s idea of saving $3 billion over ten years involves spending $4 billion.

‘We’re standing at a point where to continue business as usual would lead to around $3 billion of losses by the end of the decade. Those losses either have to be covered by taxpayers or would lead to dramatically higher power bills for West Australians – while still continuing to emit higher levels of carbon emissions. Either way, it’s simply not sustainable in the long term.’

Why not just close the power stations and let the renewables sector expand on its own? Or is it not profitable without a drip attacked to the state coffers…?

No, don’t bother looking for the Liberal Party. It was former-Liberal Leader Zak Kirkup’s idea in the first place. The great news is that Western Australia doesn’t have an extension cord long enough to cross the desert, so McGowan will have nowhere to hide when it all goes horribly wrong.

All this is taking place while bored billionaires purchase coal-fired power stations for fun and shut them down unnecessarily.

The result of closing power plants is a sudden and drastic reliance on gas – of which there isn’t an infinite amount to go around. Shortages are being flagged, even if resources are expanded. Gas was meant to prop renewables up for decades, but the determination for ‘climate action right-now’ is resulting in the ridiculous culling of gas reserves which will, in turn, limit the lifespan of the renewables industry.

This is all complete madness when a few strategically placed nuclear plants could permanently solve the energy crisis with next-to-no emissions. For those who say, ‘oh nuclear is expensive!’ weren’t they telling us that ‘no expense is too much to save the world from extinction?’ We’re not told the total green price tag, but subsidies for renewables alone were set at $11.6 billion in 2021.

The answer is sitting in front of Australia, but governments, the energy industry, and mining companies have no interest in pursuing nuclear until they have dug up and sold every last dollar from other resources that are set to be devalued when the ‘Nuclear Age’ arrives.

Energy supply doesn’t care much for virtue-signalling politics or the ambitions of career politicians. It is a world of engineering absolutes, brick walls, and fail points. Reliable, stable power is essential to sustain the lives of millions of people where even short-lived blackouts pose a serious threat.

Hippy colonies can get away with a few cold nights or a failed market garden by collapsing around a campfire for a bit of weed-induced ‘Kumbaya’ followed by a sneaky trip to the local shops. When the same thing happens to a city, panic takes hold. Investors pull out. Businesses close. The elderly freeze to death.

Covid was not an emergency. Sustained blackouts and a ruined power grid is an emergency.

Any government that chooses to play politics with energy is reckless to the point of criminal. Finally (and just for fun) what happens if Australia finally gets its 100 per cent magnificent wind and solar grid backed up by battery power during the night when there’s no wind?

Uh, blackouts…

https://spectator.com.au/2022/06/the-dark-ages-for-australian-energy/

Wednesday, June 15, 2022

CO2 Coalition submission to SEC -- on Proposal for Climate Change Disclosures

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) proposal to require that businesses take extraordinary measures to account for climate risks is based on a false premise that there is a climate emergency because emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity threaten Earth with catastrophic warming. None of this is so.

In fact, carbon dioxide is a beneficial gas absolutely necessary for life. More of it is good, as can be seen in an overall greening of Earth and record crop harvests that have paralleled modest warming and increasing CO2 levels in recent decades. Predictions of dangerous warming are based on flawed climate models and exaggerations of carbon dioxide’s potency as a greenhouse gas. In agreement with this view are many scientists, including the 95 members of the CO2 Coalition based at Arlington, Virginia.

One of those scientists is Dr. Patrick Moore, a former CO2 Coalition chairman and a co-founder of Greenpeace, who says that man-made CO2 emissions are life-saving. His 2016 paper, “The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the Survival of Life on Earth,” states:

As recently as 18,000 years ago, at the height of the most recent major glaciation, CO2 dipped to its lowest level in recorded history at 180 ppm (parts per million), low enough to stunt plant growth. This is only 30 ppm above a level that would result in the death of plants due to CO2 starvation.

It is calculated that if the decline in CO2 levels were to continue at the same rate as it has over the past 140 million years, life on Earth would begin to die as soon as two million years from now and would slowly perish almost entirely as carbon continued to be lost to the deep ocean sediments.

The combustion of fossil fuels for energy to power human civilization has reversed the downward trend in CO2 and promises to bring it back to levels that are likely to foster a considerable increase in the growth rate and biomass of plants, including food crops and trees.

Human emissions of CO2 have restored a balance to the global carbon cycle, thereby ensuring the long-term continuation of life on Earth.

This extremely positive aspect of human CO2 emissions must be weighed against the unproven hypothesis that human CO2 emissions will cause a catastrophic warming of the climate in coming years.

The one-sided political treatment of CO2 as a pollutant that should be radically reduced must be corrected in light of the indisputable scientific evidence that it is essential to life on Earth.

According to this understanding of the atmospheric cycle of carbon dioxide, it would be more appropriate to reward the burning of fossil fuels than to discourage it.

Even if one accepts the gloomy forecasts of global warming, says Stuart Kirk, former Head of Responsible Investments at the UK bank HSBC, “Climate change is not a financial risk that we have to worry about.”

Mr. Kirk says that the most pessimistic view of climate’s effect on gross domestic product (GDP) estimates a five percent loss by 2100. However, he says, that number is insignificant compared to projected growth of between 500 and 1,000 percent GDP growth over the next 80 years. “A thousand percent! You lop five percent off that and who cares? You will never notice,” said the banker.

In assessing Mr. Kirk’s statements, CEOWorld Magazine, wrote, “It would be foolish to argue that this statement is totally off base. It has a significant amount of truth as shown by actual investment behaviors and returns.” Indeed.

We urge the SEC to abandon its effort to inject the irrationality of a climate scare into the management of American business. The costs to businesses would be large and the effects minimal.

https://co2coalition.org/publications/co2-coalition-comment-sec-proposal-on-climate-change-disclosures/

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

The Iron Law of Climate Policy

If there is an iron law of climate policy, it is that when policies focused on economic growth confront policies focused on emissions reductions, it is economic growth that will win out every time. That’s how I introduced the iron law in my book The Climate Fix back in 2010.

I coined the term to focus people’s attention on what might be called boundary conditions for the design of climate policies focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Back then there was great enthusiasm for putting into place policies that would increase the costs of energy – the idea of “cap and trade” was all the rage. In The Climate Fix, I argued that accelerating decarbonization to hit climate targets by intentionally increasing energy prices was never going to work. It was not a popular view then, but it has become broadly accepted since.

One anecdote I cited at the time was the changing view of President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu. Prior to taking a role in the Obama Administration, in 2008 Chu argued that addressing climate change required U.S. gasoline prices go to $9 or $10 a gallon. When testifying before the Senate in 2012, he was asked about this comment by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), which he quickly disavowed.

“So are you saying you no longer share the view that we need to figure out how to boost gasoline prices in America?” Lee asked.

“I no longer share that view,” Chu replied.

“When I became secretary of Energy, I represented the U.S. government,” Chu added. “Of course we don’t want the price of gasoline to go up, we want it to go down.”

What caused Secretary Chu to reverse his view? The iron law.

The idea of using higher priced energy as a key tool to accelerate decarbonization makes perfect sense – in theory and in bloodless computer models. In the real world it runs up against the reality that while some people may be willing to paying higher prices of climate policy, that willingness is limited. Last fall, a University of Chicago opinion poll found that only 52% of Americans would be support (strongly and somewhat) to pay $1 per month to combat climate change., and 28% did not support even paying that much. As the proposed cost increases, support decreases. At $10 per month support and opposition were about equal in the poll.

As gasoline prices have recently spiked to over $5 per gallon nationwide, today the Biden Administration has quickly pivoted its stance on energy. Here are recent comments by President Biden and his Energy Secretary, Jennifer Granholm:

President Biden: “I led the world to coordinate the largest release of global oil reserves in history — 240 million barrels — to boost supply to keep prices from rising even more.”

Energy Secretary Granholm: “In this moment of crisis, we need more supply ... right now, we need oil and gas production to rise to meet current demand.”

At about 3% of spending in April, gasoline was at the highest level of overall spending since 2014. Since April, gasoline prices have increased by another 30%. All else equal, that would suggest that in June, 2022 gasoline would have increased to about 4% of personal consumption expenditures. That would mean that gasoline spending today takes up about three times the amount of spending in consumers’ budgets than it did in 2020, while the nation was in the depths of the pandemic. That is a big increase over a short time. No wonder President Biden’s attention is focused on energy prices and supply.

The dynamics described here are by no means unique to the United States. The iron law holds everywhere that people are found. When energy prices increase, for whatever reason, people respond. Consider these recent reactions to higher priced energy around the world:

Protests in Europe

Protests in Central Asia

Protests in Southeast Asia

Protests in South America

When we look at where carbon pricing is implemented we see what it means to implement carbon pricing consistent with the iron law. Here is what we have learned:

Richer jurisdictions more readily adopt carbon pricing

Carbon pricing is easier when existing energy supply relies less on carbon-intensive fuels

Carbon pricing requires keeping carbon prices sufficiently modest

These conditions are unlikely to change. As the World Bank observes, “adopting carbon prices remains politically challenging, particularly amid rising inflation and energy prices. There is a clear need to ensure policies are fair, effective, and embedded within integrated climate and social policies.”

Email from rogerpielkejr@substack.com

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

Green/Left politicians are ruining New Zealand

That the worst Prime Minister New Zealand has ever had has bought into the climate emergency scam – or finds it convenient to endorse it – is not surprising. What is unforgivable is that the leader of the opposition, and apparently every MP, is supporting this canard. The sheer ignorance involved in endorsing this fake, global warming scenario is not only quite shocking. It’s also inflicting increased taxation and compliance issues across multiple areas on New Zealanders, especially those who can least afford it.

Targeting motorists to reduce by 20 per cent the number of people using cars – the most convenient form of transport – is ridiculous. There is a growing lack of enthusiasm for sharing public transport – recognised as an increased health risk, given the lessons from Covid. Cycling is hardly possible for tradespeople, professionals, or families with children. It is also rather ominous that the thinking is for people to be corralled into the inner cities where cars are not seen as necessary, and where they can be more easily controlled.

In essence, our government’s recently released proposals are not just punitive. What is unforgivable is that all our MPs are aware that nothing this small country can do to reduce CO2 emissions will make one whit of difference to the planet! So why are New Zealanders being so punitively targeted?

Although scientists were once held in a kind of reverent respect, we have learned that many endorse this canard about the destructive nature of CO2 to further their own careers, seeking funding for their own projects. Equally culpable is that our media have become complicit in promoting government propaganda by refusing to publish the consistent challenges from top scientists pointing out that demonising CO2, a minor greenhouse gas, is senseless, from a scientific point of view, and presages destructive policy-making.

The censorship applied by the mainstream media, essentially cheer-leading for our hard-left government – rather than impartially examining the evidence critiquing the global warming scam – is undeniably against this country’s best interests. Refusing to publish the findings of such reputable scientists as Australians Bob Carter, the well-respected Ian Plimer, our own Dr David Kear and many others can be regarded as basically a social crime – even treasonable.

Harsh lessons to be learned from Europe’s escalating energy crises are lost on our apparently ignorant MPs, while other, major-emitting countries renege on their undertakings. The UK government is calling on energy firms to keep buying coal. Australian MPs are arguing net zero is done and dusted. Worldwide, new coal-fired power plants are being built, nearly 200 in Asia, the majority by far in China, followed by India and Indonesia. Communist China paying lip-service to reducing emissions – while conning countries as foolish as ours into demonising coal, gas and oil – has become an important weapon in her war against the West.

Moreover, the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, in its annual state of the climate report by Ole Humlum, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor at the University of Oslo, examining temperature records and trends for the atmosphere, oceans and other weather events, found no evidence of a dramatic change in snow cover, rates of sea-level rise, or storm activity.

Global tide gauge measurements suggested sea levels are rising on average between 1 and 2 mm per year, consistent with the historic rise of the past hundred years, with no recent acceleration or deceleration in the rate of rise.

It makes fascinating reading, endorsed by GWPF director Benny Peiser Ph.D. finding it extraordinary that anyone should think there is a climate crisis. ‘Year after year our annual assessment of climate trends documents 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.’

As actual evidence does not count, this won’t deter those applauding the Emissions Targeting plan just released, promoted by the Climate Change Commission. Long out of touch with reality, it is dismayed we may miss our set target of net zero – despite the government’s ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, wanting industrial coal burners removed, and gas connections scrapped as soon as possible.

Moreover, while New Zealanders are beginning to doubt the truth of this cargo cult, a new issue is conveniently playing into the government’s hands. We are being told that sea levels are going to rise 30 cm, and that with the movement of our tectonic plates New Zealand is actually sinking, causing havoc to people’s property and cities along the coastline.

That this catastrophe claim can be contested is not surprising. The aforementioned Australian geologist, Ian Plimer, pointed out that if there was a global sea-level rise it would be worldwide, not just on the eastern side of New Zealand; that sea-level change is not simple and that over the history of time there is also no relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide, sea levels and climate.

For example, we are told that Pacific Ocean atoll nations will be inundated, ‘but there seems to be no knowledge of the exact opposite findings by Charles Lyell (1833) Charles Darwin (1842) and various scientists from the University of Auckland over the last decades. The oceans are dynamic; local sea-level changes are always taking place, and a postglacial sea-level rise is minuscule in the scale of things – is exactly as expected – and there is no relationship to atmospheric carbon dioxide. If atmospheric carbon dioxide drove a high sea level, then we could not have had six of the six global ice ages start when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now’.

Another scientist pointed out that in South Wairarapa on the east coast beach ridges have been uplifted – ‘it is all to do with plate tectonics, and claims of sea level rise can be open to manipulation’.

Nothing deterred, Finance Minister Grant Robertson has announced a new Climate Change Emergency Fund of $4 billion over the next four years – as a down payment only! But where is the appraisal of this whole climate change hysteria by an intelligent opposition? And by the media? And whatever has happened to the once far-superior intellectual capital of our country?

https://spectator.com.au/2022/06/ignorant-or-subversive

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

The reality of owning an electric car in Australia: Driver struggles with useless ghost chargers, other motorists stealing his spot and taking a whole day to finish a trip between Canberra and Sydney

An electric vehicle owner has shared the brutal reality of going on a roadtrip in his $72,000 car - taking a full day to drive from Sydney to Canberra and back again after repeatedly struggling to find spots to charge it.

A video posted to TikTok by user Suthocam on June 10 showed the issues EV drivers who do not have access to the Tesla supercharging network face.

Suthocam detailed his charging port debacle after a Sydney to Canberra round trip in a Hyundai IONIQ 5 using only third party chargers.

'The car itself is a great road trip vehicle - it's super spacious, great seats, great speakers and has a cool big sunroof,' Suthocam said.

Suthocam said the $71,900 vehicle, with an estimated range of 450km, was able to make the trip to Canberra in one charge but he decided to give it a top-up which would allow him to drive the car around the city once there.

His first stop was a charging station in Goulburn, 196km from Sydney, where the only available port was out-of-order.

The NRMA ChargeFox charger screen notified the driver that the 'station had faulted' and had not been fixed since the beginning of the year despite an 'estimated' repair date of January 14.

Suthocam waited until a working charger became available and then had to park halfway in a disabled parking spot for the cord to reach his car's battery - a scene he described as 'just a bit sketchy'.

'Once we got going again we made it... so worth it,' Suthocam said. 'It was pretty in Canberra but we had to get back on the road so we had to go find some chargers.'

The first charger the EV driver found was located in a carpark and did not work.

The Tesla wall chargers did not work with his Hyundai and the other chargers that did work were often taken up by other cars.

'Finally we found a free charger (in an Ikea carpark) in what felt like a really long time but it was super slow,' Suthocam said. 'I didn't want to wait four hours to get 100 per cent so I had to find a fast charger.'

Suthocam drove to a third charging station but to his frustration it was blocked by a petrol ute.

He then drove to a fourth charging port but was unable to locate it despite it appearing on the car's map. He found a fifth, but it was being used by a Tesla.

A sixth station was found but to Suthocam's dismay it had a similar speed to the Ikea carpark charger. 'We ended up having to jump back into Goulburn, charge there, and then finally made it home,' Suthocam said.

The charging port ordeal added two-and-a-half hours to Suthocam's round trip - a drive which typically takes six to seven hours.

The video, which he captioned 'we need more chargers tbh', has received more than 190,000 views and almost 700 comments.

'I love the idea of EVs but good lord I’d go insane if I had to spend 50 per cent of my day worrying about charging just to get to Canberra and back,' one user commented. 'You’ve convinced me to give it another two to three years before considering getting EV,' a second user wrote.

'Same issues in the UK. Until they sort out charging infrastructure I'm going to stick with dinosaur juice,' a third chimed.

The Electric Vehicle Council (the national body representing Australia's EV industry), reported an 85 per cent increase in the number of ultra-fast charging stations across the country and a 29.6 per cent increase in standard stations since August 2020.

However, drivers are reluctant to make the switch to plug-in cars as the nation's infrastructure for fast-charging ports has not caught up to the demand.

In Australia, just 1.5 per cent of cars sold are electric and plug-in hybrid, compared to 17 per cent in the United Kingdom and 85 per cent in Norway.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is set to introduce policies to boost the take-up of electric vehicles but will stop short of imposing a ban on petrol or diesel cars as part of his plan to tackle climate change.

The Labor Party will introduce tax benefits to reduce the price of electric cars and plug-in hybrids, forecasting that 89 per cent of new car sales will be electric by 2030.

By making electric cars cheaper and more convenient, Mr Albanese hopes there will be 3.8 million on the road by 2030, with 15 per cent of all cars on the road by then being zero-emission.

Electric cars will be exempt from a five per cent import tariff that would reduce the cost of a $40,000 vehicle by $2000. The move would result in savings of up to $8700 for a $50,000 vehicle. The tax cuts will be introduced on July 1 this year and will be reviewed in three years.

Labor will also invest $39.3 million, matched by the NRMA, to deliver 117 fast charging stations on highways across Australia.

This will provide charging stations at an average interval of 150km on major roads, allowing Aussies to drive from Adelaide to Perth or Darwin to Broome with an electric car.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10913793/Electric-car-owner-struggles-charge-road-trip-Sydney-Canberra-Hyundai-IONIQ-5.html

BlackRock will not be the 'environmental police' in ethical investing U-turn

The Fink gets real

Larry Fink's comments represent a significant U-turn for the money manger which has been at the forefront of Wall Street's ethical investing push CREDIT: Simon Dawson /Bloomberg
BlackRock’s chief executive has warned it will not act as “the environmental police” in the latest sign the asset manager is shying away from green activism.

Larry Fink, head of the world’s largest money manager, said that it is wrong to ask the private sector to ensure that the companies they invest in are doing their part to combat climate change.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, he said: “I don’t want to be the environmental police.”

Mr Fink’s comments represent a significant u-turn for BlackRock which has been at the forefront of Wall Street’s push to focus on environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing.

It comes after the asset manager warned last month that it will vote against most shareholder resolutions on climate change this year as they are too extreme.

The company said it was concerned about proposals to stop financing fossil fuel companies, including forcing them to decommission assets and setting absolute targets for reducing emissions in their supply chains.

In January 2020, Mr Fink said “climate risk is investment risk” as he positioned BlackRock as a leader in ESG investing. He also warned that climate change posed the biggest ever risk to financial markets.

Mr Fink said: “Climate change is different. Even if only a fraction of the projected impacts is realised, this is a much more structural, long-term crisis. Companies, investors, and governments must prepare for a significant reallocation of capital.”

Blackrock has ballooned to manage just under $10 trillion (£7.3 trillion) in assets, giving the company significant stakes and influence in many of the world’s largest corporations.

The decision to distance itself from “prescriptive” climate change policies comes as institutional investors face criticism for allegedly pushing political agendas.

However, BlackRock has been a target of criticism from both climate activists and those who promote a more gradual transition to green energy.

In Texas, the asset manager has denied suggestions by state officials that it boycotts fossil-fuel companies through its advocacy for sustainable investing.

In recent months, the asset manager has said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has impacted the transition to net-zero, adding that short-term investment in traditional energy sources is now required to boost security.

BlackRock’s latest stewardship report also stated that the company will not support proposals that could lead to companies being "micromanaged".

It said: "We are not likely to support those [shareholder proposals] that in our assessment, implicitly are intended to micromanage companies.

“This includes those that are unduly prescriptive and constraining on the decision-making of the board or management, call for changes to a company's strategy or business model or address matters that are not material to how a company delivers long-term shareholder value."

ESG investing has come under further scrutiny in recent weeks, with critics arguing that some companies and investors are using the catch-all term to “greenwash” - giving false information to promote an environmentally responsible image.

Last week, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided by German police over accusations of "greenwashing" its investments.

Around 50 police officers entered the Frankfurt offices of Germany's largest lender and those of its asset manager unit DWS.

It follows inquiries into DWS by the German regulator BaFin and the US Securities and Exchange Commission after its former head of sustainability alleged last year that the company had inflated its ESG credentials.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/06/blackrock-will-not-environmental-police-ethical-investing-u/

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

The UK car industry is caught between the death of the combustion engine and the full dawning of electric vehicles

Car manufacturing is a totemic industry in the UK and one of the last big links to the country’s manufacturing heritage. The regular curmudgeonly complaint that Britain doesn’t make anything anymore can swiftly be countered with a quick nod to the nearly 350,000 Qashquais, Jukes and Leafs (Leaves?) that roll off Nissan’s hyper-efficient, state-of-the-art production line in the North East each year. Cars remain the UK's number one export.

But for how much longer? The UK’s car manufacturers have faced four huge roadblocks in quick succession. First they only just managed to swerve the worst form of Brexit which would have resulted in tariffs being placed on exports. Then they got into a fender bender with Covid that resulted in factories being shut down and supply chains becoming gummed up. Now they are having to make evasive manoeuvres to avoid head on collision with an imminent recession and the drive towards net zero.

Much has been made of Thatcher’s pitch to Japanese car makers, which sold the UK as a beachhead into the common market. But that was only ever part of the deal. She also offered tax breaks to encourage investment and presided over a booming economy that boosted demand. The UK became an enormous market in its own right. The Bavarian nickname for Gro�britannien is Treasury Island because one in five cars built in Germany ends up here.

One of the most important concepts that Japanese carmakers brought with them to the UK was “kaizen”, which roughly translates as “continuous improvement”. It is thought that this is one of the reasons why productivity in the industry between the financial crisis and 2015 increased by 30pc even as it flatlined in most other sectors.

But following the Brexit referendum, the UK government and car industry essentially became locked in a long-running debate about maintaining the status quo. Having at the last possible minute achieved that aim and avoided the imposition of margin-destroying tariffs on exports to the EU, there is now a dawning realisation that the standing still is patently not good enough.

In July last year, Honda closed the doors on its Swindon factory after 36 years with the loss of 3,000 jobs. Brexit was the obvious culprit especially given how vocally Honda had opposed it. But industry experts pointed out the plant had been struggling for some time. Analysts believe that car plants need to produce roughly a quarter of a million cars a year in order to achieve the required economies of scale. Swindon was struggling to produce 160,000.

The real issue facing the UK car industry is that it has emerged from the threats posed by Brexit and Covid and a long cessation of “continuous improvement” into a fuzzy period between the twilight of the combustion engine and the full dawning of electric vehicles.

There are two chicken-or-egg situations - one around demand for electric cars and the other around how they are built - that need to be resolved. Normally one would expect the market to just figure these problems out. But the state has at least partly precipitated both - by setting an artificial deadline for net zero and prolonging the uncertainty around Brexit - and will therefore have to help resolve them.

The UK is banning the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. Figures out on Monday showed that new UK car registrations fell by 20.6pc to 124,394 units in the second weakest May since 1992. (The worst May was when the country was in lockdown in 2020 and therefore doesn’t really count.)

The decline, compared with the first full month of reopened showrooms in May last year, demonstrates the impact of continued global supply chain disruptions but it is also the result of cash-strapped households holding off from making big purchases, especially when the choice is between a petrol or diesel powered car, which will soon be obsolete, and an electric vehicle they may struggle to charge.

As SMMT boss Mike Hawes says: “To… drive a robust mass market for these vehicles, we need to ensure every buyer has the confidence to go electric. This requires an acceleration in the rollout of accessible charging infrastructure.”

At the same time, traditional manufacturers are struggling to reconfigure their product lines and supply chains. Battery vehicles have far fewer moving parts, which has significantly elevated the importance of localised production. New rules of origin requirements meant that car makers have to prove that 40pc of the value of the parts in a finished car were produced in the UK or the EU before they can be exported to the continent.

This threshold rises to 45pc next year and 55pc in 2027. Batteries tend to make up about 50pc of the total value of an eclectic car. What’s more, they’re really heavy. Those for the Nissan Leaf weigh about 300kg, while those for the Jaguar i-Pace come in at roughly one tonne. The upshot is, batteries need to be made very close to where the car is assembled.

Nissan, for example, is increasing production in the UK after signing an exclusive deal with a battery producer called Envision, which has a plant near Sunderland. The trouble is, there aren’t many Envisions around. This is why the UK needs to do everything it can to attract gigafactories to these shores.

The countries that win the race to scale up battery production will be the ones that are able to generate the efficiencies and economies of scale that ensure they can maintain a meaningful mass-market car industry beyond the end of this decade. This is a sector that needs more than lucky if it is to continue to endure.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/07/britains-car-industry-existential-crisis-dont-blame-brexit/?mc_cid=c5440e55b9&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Putin's war and green zealots doom the West to a ruinous energy bill

Traditionally, the oil price cycle follows a wholly predictable pattern. High prices, whatever their immediate cause, deliver bumper profits and therefore prompt a dash to invest; but those very same high prices will also create their own demand destruction, often resulting in an outright recession as economies struggle to absorb soaraway energy costs.

Demand abates just as all that new capacity comes on stream, causing prices to collapse and new investment to cease. Demand then comes back into balance with capacity, and eventually exceeds it. Prices start to rise, and the cycle begins again.

But there are two big differences this time around – the climate change agenda and sanctions against Russia for its murderous assault on Ukraine. Even before the Russian invasion, it was obvious that climate change goals, which began to kick in with ever increasing intensity from around 2017 onwards, were going to result in a major supply problem.

Despite continued reliance on hydrocarbons for virtually all our creature comforts, here was an industry said already to be obsolete, and therefore essentially uninvestable. Investment in exploration and development progressively slowed, and then ground to a virtual standstill when the pandemic hit. It was seemingly the end of the line for Big Oil.

You are no longer needed, the oil companies were firmly told; your reserves of oil and gas will be left stranded with no one to sell to, and they are therefore not worth developing.

Institutional investors, with ESG demands to answer to, piled in on top. But then enter stage left the villainous Vladimir Putin. Turns out we are going to need those big bad oil companies after all, and maybe even the pariah fuel of coal.

By seeking to ban Russian oil and gas, Europe has all but removed one of the world’s biggest suppliers from the mix, hugely compounding the capacity shortages that became apparent as economies bounced back from the enforced closures of the pandemic.

The result is a kind of bifurcation in previously global oil and gas markets, with Western countries forced to seek pricey alternatives to Russian hydrocarbons, but less principled countries such as China and India able to access the Russian product at what by today's standards look like bargain basement prices.

Where once they enjoyed the competitive advantage of cheap labour, they now gain the additional benefit of relatively cheap oil and gas.

It’s going to take a long time to develop the alternatives to Russia the West now needs. Still, one pariah cancels out another, I suppose. In seeking to isolate Russia, the US and its allies are ludicrously forced to cosy up to other pariah states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran to help counter the eviscerating effects of $100-plus oil.

Curiously, you might think, we have not yet seen the rehabilitation of Big Oil fully reflected in the share prices of either BP or Shell. Yes, the shares have come surging back, but to nowhere near the levels which have historically been associated with $100-plus oil.

Why is that? Partly, it's down to having to write off big investments in Russian oil and gas. There's also the smash and grab raid of a windfall tax to contend with. But mainly it’s to do with our old friend climate change. Both UK-domiciled oil giants have ambitious plans to transition to renewables.

Understandably, investors are nervous. However time-limited the business of oil and gas might be, there is something to be said for sticking to the knitting – as ExxonMobil, Chevron and Occidental are largely doing by paying out bumper dividends rather than heeding the siren calls of renewable “opportunity”.

Instead, BP and Shell look set to squander today’s embarrassment of riches on enterprises they know nothing about. In any case, it’s all good news for the green lobby. High hydrocarbon prices help speed the transition by making renewable sources of energy look more competitive.

As long as Russia remains out of the action, it’s going to take a long time for Western supply and demand to come back into balance, even with the dampening effects on demand of a recession.

One can criticise France’s Emmanuel Macron and Italy’s Mario Draghi for attempting to sell Ukraine’s territorial integrity down the river by seeking a peace deal with Putin, but at least it recognises this uncomfortable truth. As long as the war persists, energy prices are going to remain destructively high, at least for the West.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/06/07/putins-war-green-zealots-doom-west-ruinous-energy-bill/?mc_cid=c5440e55b9&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Australia: Federalism comes to coal

The clause below

"until the transition to renewables and storage is complete"

both shows an awareness of the energy problem and tells us how foolish the faith in "renewables" is. To transform to 100% renewables you would need "storage" (batteries) on an umimaginable scale

Individual states and territories will decide whether to exclude coal and gas power from a temporary capacity mechanism, designed to secure enough baseload generation until the transition to renewables and storage is complete.

The Energy Security Board’s draft capacity mechanism, to be released within two weeks, is understood to be based on a technology-neutral model and will not endorse subsidies to keep coal-fired power stations and gas in the system longer than needed.

The ESB brief from federal, state and territory ministers is that the capacity mechanism should not conflict with ambitious renewables and storage targets, and that different jurisdictions can opt in to preferred technologies.

Energy ministers are keen to avoid costs being passed on to customers when energy retailers lock in long-term electricity supplies under a capacity mechanism, which other countries facing supply pressures have adopted.

Amid an east coast electricity crisis fuelled by global factors and outages across the National Electricity Market, more coal-fired power capacity will come online this week to reduce the reliance on high-priced gas.

Queensland’s CS Energy, which contributes 10 per cent of the NEM’s output, is preparing to bring three of the four units at the 1525MW Callide power station online next month, increasing output alongside its 750MW Kogan Creek plant. The Callide plant’s C4 generator, which was shut after an explosion last year, will not resume activity until April next year.

Queensland Energy Minister Mick de Brenni said the government would “not be shutting the gate on our power stations, their workers or their communities and instead will invest in their future”.

“The energy ministers meeting was clear – we will finally have a sensible plan to boost our energy capacity across the nation,” he said. “But we were also clear – in Queensland, the diversity of our energy system is what delivered reliable power, and our power stations will continue to sit at the heart of that. Because Queenslanders own their own energy assets, we have avoided the energy chaos that has gripped southern states in the wake of nine years of the divided Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government.”

Grattan Institute energy and climate change director Tony Wood said the proposed capacity mechanism was not a “coal-keeper or gas-keeper … it’s the lights-on-keeper”.

Mr Wood said a capacity mechanism was unlikely to lock in long-term investment in coal-fired power stations, and predicted fierce opposition to “perverse incentives” extending the life of coal plants. He raised concerns about high coal prices on the spot market, which were “just as bad” as gas.

“If the capacity mechanism is designed properly, it will only be there while we need it,” he said.

“Other countries have forms of a capacity mechanism, Western Australia has a capacity mechanism. You can design a bad one or you can design a good one. You can design one that rules out certain technologies but there will be consequences if you rule out certain technologies.”

Mr Wood said guidelines provided by energy ministers to the ESB last year would give cover to some, including Victorian Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio, to say “we don’t want to have coal or gas getting capacity payments”.

He described the mechanism as a “shock absorber or comfort blanket” for governments that would “not stay in any longer than necessary”. “I do not know how you have a capacity mechanism without coal and gas because you’ve only got a couple of large pumped hydro projects and one of them is already running late,” he said.

“The collective ministers (need to be convinced) that this is not a coal-keeper, or gas-keeper or fossil fuel-keeper. This is a policy that says if we are going to achieve (high renewables targets) we’re going to need capacity to be there when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. One way to do that is to pay for it.”

Energy ministers will discuss a new net zero emissions energy market plan at their next meeting in July to better align federal, state and territory strategies to decarbonise the sector.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/states-get-power-to-decide-on-energy-needs/news-story/e7ff563dd901778080af2d3cb173a563

Monday, June 13, 2022

Ketchup at risk from climate change

More nickel-plated nonsense. A computer model prediction only. In real life tomatoes grow perfectly well in warm climates. The major source of tomatoes in my State is Bundaberg, which has a nearly tropical climate -- already warmer than projected temperatures in Europe and North America

Tomato ketchup, a stalwart of British dinner tables, may soon be a much rarer commodity as climate change threatens to halve the fruit’s global harvest this century, according to a new study.

Ketchup is made from so-called processing tomatoes, which are predominantly cultivated in California, Italy and China, all of which are at risk from global warming.

Soaring temperatures mean the plants, like most crops worldwide, are being increasingly put under stress. A team of researchers led by Aarhus University in Denmark has now created a mathematical model to see how different climate change scenarios would affect production.

“There are two types of cultivated tomato: one type for fresh consumption (for example, salad tomatoes), usually grown under controlled environments; and one type used for industrial transformation known as processing tomatoes (for example, canned tomatoes), which are usually grown under field conditions,” the researchers write in their paper, published in Nature Food.

“Processing tomatoes are important because they are used for tomato paste, tomato sauce, ketchup and other tomato-derived products.”

Dr Davide Cammarano, the lead author of the study from Aarhus University, told The Telegraph: “The threat of climate change is significant, especially because the type of tomato we dealt with in this study (processing tomatoes that are field grown and mechanically harvested) requires irrigation.

“It is likely that more water will be needed to keep a profitable production in the future. This has important implications because water is something that is going to be less available for agriculture in some of the areas considered in this study.”

Tomato harvest could be halved

Around 180 million tonnes of tomatoes are grown every year, with two thirds produced by just three countries: the United States, China and Italy.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlined five future global warming scenarios covering different levels of fossil fuel use and emissions.

Overall, the research found that by 2050, there would be around a six per cent decline in tomato production, with little difference between the five potential futures. But between 2050 and 2100, there is a stark difference depending on the climate model used and in the worst-case scenario, the tomato harvest could be halved.

“The production of the three main tomato-producing countries (Italy, China, the USA, which together account for 65 per cent of global production) is halved by 2100 under the worst case scenario,” Dr Cammarano said.

The worst-case scenario would involve a temperature increase in the tomato-producing regions of about 2.6C between 2040 and 2069, and 5C for 2070–2099, when compared to the baseline period of between 1980 and 2009.

Under these stipulations, the computer model projected that the global harvest of processing tomatoes in the 11 biggest growers would drop from the current 14 million tonnes a year level to less than seven million tonnes.

Warmer temperatures reduce yield

Warmer temperatures speed up how quickly plants grow, resulting in a shorter time for fruit development and therefore reducing yield.

“All crops have an optimal temperature during which development is optimal,” the scientists write.

“However, above this threshold temperature there is an acceleration in the senescence processes that has a negative impact on yield.

“The future viability of processing tomato production is different for each region,” they add.

“China will be one of the regions that is projected to be able to maintain a viable production of processing tomatoes… [but] California and Italy will be negatively impacted by the projected environmental changes.”

Dr Cammarano added: “The study shows that even lower levels of warming are enough to alter the major suitability zones for tomato production.

“Adaptation to climate changes can increase production, and this study emphasises the need to consider future climate shifts in designing resilient tomato production and value chains.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/06/06/ketchup-risk-climate-change/

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

Despite all the efforts to stop it, CO2 levels continue their relentless rise

Emissions across the globe continue to rise despite nations committing to cut them.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said its long-time monitoring station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, averaged 421 parts per million of carbon dioxide for the month of May, which is when the crucial greenhouse gas hits its yearly high.

Before the industrial revolution in the late 19th century carbon dioxide levels were at 280 parts per million, scientists said, so humans have significantly changed the atmosphere.

Some activists and scientists want a level of 350 parts per million.

Industrial carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of coal, oil and gas.

"The world is trying to reduce emissions, and you just don't see it," said NOAA climate scientist Pieter Tans.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-04/carbon-dioxide-emissions-hold-firm/101126312

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

The World Health Organization’s Climate Neurosis

Measles cases are spiking globally. More than 1,000 monkeypox cases have been reported in 29 countries, and children around the world are developing hepatitis for unknown reasons. And what is the World Health Organization focused on? Climate change, naturally.

The WHO on Friday published a report on the potential mental-health impact of climate change, and better see your psychiatrist before it’s too late. “There are gaps in understanding the impact of climate change on mental health and psychosocial well-being, but current knowledge is sufficient to act!” the 16-page report says. When do knowledge gaps ever stop climate lobbyists from demanding that governments grab more power?

Colorful graphics explain that “witnessing changes and damage to landscape and ecosystems” and “awareness of climate change and extreme weather events and their impacts” could lead to strained social relationships, anxiety, depression, intimate partner violence, helplessness, suicidal behavior and alcohol and substance abuse, among other things.

Yes, the WHO has found a way to link climate change to every social problem under the sun. If rising sea levels, warmer temperatures, wildfires and hurricanes don’t destroy civilization, anxiety about apocalyptic predictions will.

The WHO says many young people report feeling “impairing distress,” perhaps due to alarmist news stories. “Various terms have emerged to describe these responses, particularly among youth affected by climate change, including climate change anxiety, solastalgia, eco-anxiety, environmental distress, ecological grief, and climate-related psychological distress,” the report says.

Believe it or not, some therapists report they are seeing more young patients afflicted by paralyzing climate dread. A recent study in The Lancet reported that 45% of young people surveyed in 10 mostly higher and upper-middle income countries said their feelings about climate change hurt their daily functioning.

Maybe the WHO could do a public-health service by informing young people that the world isn’t doomed. Ah, but its goal is to persuade wealthy countries to give it more money. The WHO knows that mental illness has become a hot issue in the West in the wake of Covid lockdowns, which it supported. Now it sees a new opportunity to expand its brief, which could be a money-maker for decades.

The WHO lost credibility after being late to raise alarms about Covid and then helping China whitewash an investigation into its origins. Like many bureaucracies, it wants to expand its authority despite failing in its core responsibilities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-whos-climate-neurosis-world-health-organization-climate-change-mental-health-depression-11654637336

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

Australia: Energy pie in the sky is great but how do we cook it?

Matt Canavan says we need coal still -- and gas mining opposition in NSW and Victoria needs to be bypassed

The saying “pie in the sky” was coined by American labour activist Joe Hill. He penned a song criticising Christian labour activists who, in his view, let people live on “hay” in this life, but promised them “pie in the sky” in the next.

For a long time we have been promised our energy version of pie in the sky as long as we just keep investing in renewable energy.

Australia has swallowed this gospel and then some. We have installed renewable energy at a faster rate than any other country in the world. Australia has been building renewables at a rate of 200 watts per person per year. This is more than four times the rate of growth in Europe and North America.

Yet here we are are, with no pie, and power prices that are out of control in a country blessed with energy resources.

To get power prices down we must drop our obsession with pie in the sky solutions that we are told will work in the next world. Wind and solar that is not reliable is the most fashionable but there are a variety of pies that have been promised.

Hydrogen, batteries, pumped hydro and the latest, small modular nuclear reactors. None of these things have been successfully used at scale anywhere. Yet the energy charlatans continue to promise their latest snake oil to a gullible public.

I do think we should consider nuclear but the case for it is undermined when some push the myth that a small scale nuclear reactor can just be bought off the shelf. Modular reactors are still in the design and testing phase and could be years or decades away from commercial application.

We have an energy crisis today and we need solutions that will work within years not decades. The scale of the crisis is hard to fathom and has blindsided our energy regulators who had been drunk on the renewable energy Kool Aid. Since the Liddell coal fired power station shut its first unit in April (its remaining three will shut over the next year) wholesale power prices have skyrocketed to more than 5 times their average levels.

The wholesale power price makes up about a third of the electricity bill you pay in your home. So unless something is done soon your electricity bill will more than double.

The creation and distribution of electricity is a complex engineering challenge that few understand. But because of that there is a tendency to think that the economics of energy is complex too. It is not.

To bring down power prices we simply need to increase the supply of reliable power. To fix the crisis we have now we need to focus on options that work today, not ones that might help tomorrow.

Hundreds of High Efficiency, Low Emission coal fired power stations have built around the world yet we do not have one with the latest technology in Australia. We have the world’s best coal that is best suited to these modern coal fired power stations. We should build some to replace our ageing coal fired power fleet.

We should remove the red and green tape on the gas industry that is creating gas shortages especially in southern Australia. Victoria continues to demand that Queensland send more of its gas to it despite having a complete ban on fracking.

As Ronald Reagan said there are no easy answers but there are simple ones.

We simply need to generate more reliable power because more supply of electricity will bring the price down. If we don’t focus on the real solutions soon our only hope will be to pray for an intervention from the sky.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/matt-canavan-energy-pie-in-the-sky-is-great-but-how-do-we-cook-it/news-story/5ceb9a9b06b559ddcb832192e307d5af

Fan of Electric Cars Takes One on Road Trip, Ends Up Exposing How Bad They Are - Now She Won't Buy One

It’s been said a progressive is someone who can be persuaded to touch a hot stove twice. They have such faith in their ideology, they believe reality will obey their preferences.

Emily Dreibelbis, a graduate student at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, recently did an admirable thing. She put her progressive beliefs to the test, and honestly shared the less-than-stellar results. However, she ended up still endorsing her fantasy, as opposed to learning from the experience.

Dreibelbis made a road trip from Princeton, New Jersey, to Arlington, Virginia, and back in an electric car. The difficulties and frustrations she encountered showed her the drawbacks of electric vehicles and proved to her that now was not the time for her to buy one.

As reported in NJ.com, Dreibelbis borrowed her parents’ 2019 Chevrolet Bolt for the trip. The 200-mile trip there was troubled by scarce, broken and slow electric vehicle charging stations.

At one rest stop in Maryland, three chargers failed, and even the one that worked had an out-of-order message on its screen.

When they function, a Level 3 “fast” charger takes about an hour to give the battery a 100-mile range.

Others are slower: a Level 1 plug for home outlets can take up to 10 hours, and a Level 2, found in public parking lots, can take up to four hours — if a charger can even be located. That turned out to be the next hurdle.

When she was trying to charge up in Arlington, Google directed Dreibelbis to a charger that turned out to be inaccessible, as it was in a private condominium complex. Then Google sent her to a public garage that charged $11 for entry. “Frustrated, I surrendered the money. They only had Level Two chargers, so it took two and a half hours of reading a book in the cold until the car had enough power,” she wrote.

On the way back to her parents’ home, she barely made it.

“Thirty minutes from my house, a ‘Low Battery – Charge Vehicle Soon’ message surfaced. Confident in the 40 miles of buffer on top of what I needed to get home, I continued.

“But the cold December weather was draining the battery faster than I anticipated. Fifteen minutes later, the warning message upgraded to a mysterious ‘PROPULSION POWER IS REDUCED.’ Then, just one mile from home, the final blow: ‘OUT OF ENERGY, CHARGE VEHICLE NOW.’”

After some deliberation with her parents over the phone about whether to try calling for a tow truck on Christmas Eve, Dreibelbis decided to keep driving. It was a white-knuckle finish, but she managed to limp home.

This trip occurred in some of the most heavily populated blue regions of the country. If she encountered such maintenance and availability obstacles there, imagine the problems flyover country would experience.

Dreibelbis decided, “I’m not ready to put my own money down for one. I’d like to see the states use the federal funding as a proof point that stress-free EV trips are possible, even if for only a segment of the population to start. Until then, I’ll be watching – and waiting – to join the future of driving.”

She did not think through the practical implications of what her trip showed her. America is nowhere near ready to switch over to the limited abilities and high costs of electric cars.

The elites have decided electric cars are going to be our enforced future.

Joe Biden said as much when he talked about the catastrophic gas prices his policies have caused. He bragged about the pain of high energy prices as part of “an incredible transition” to an impractical utopian scheme, where renewable energy powers the world.

The goal is for 50 percent of car sales to be electric by 2030. In 2021, four and a half percent of car sales were electric. There’s a long way to go, and for what purpose?

Left out of the equation of these supposed carbon savings is where the electricity comes from in the first place to power the cars: fossil fuels. Generating enough electricity for America’s transportation needs would strain the power grids and even increase pollution.

Another negative factor is how long it takes to charge an electric car. Even the fastest (and most expensive) charging stations take an hour to charge even the limited-range electric car batteries have.

Can you imagine being on a trip, waiting in line for an hour for every car in front of you to charge, before you get the chance?

It’s impossible to meet the energy needs of the United States with electric vehicles. We do not have the resources to convert our modes of transportation on such an immense scale. It seems like a plan designed to cause suffering and collapse, rather than improvements.

Still, Dreibelbis felt compelled to pledge her enduring commitment to the leftist cause. In her mind, more government spending, also known as taxpayer money, will ultimately provide the infrastructure to support her virtue signaling.

“Despite it all, I remain an EV supporter. There’s just something to the smooth ride of a battery-powered car, and the miracle of transportation without emissions,” Dreibelbis stated.

She must not know about extra emissions “green” cars cause, as tires are worn down by the immense battery weight.

Dreibelbis would touch that hot stove again, causing even more pollution, wasting time, squandering money and replacing an efficient system with a less effective one, all for an illusion of “progress.”

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/fan-electric-cars-takes-one-road-trip-ends-exposing-bad-now-wont-buy-one

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

Former Vice President Mike Pence at Work Rooting Out ESG Political Bias in Biden Administration

Advancing American Freedom (AAF) yesterday announced a Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) seeking information related to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) political bias in the Biden Administration’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

”ESG ratings empower shadowy, unelected bureaucrats and activists to rate companies based on their adherence to left-wing values,” said AAF Executive Director Paul Teller. “ESG scores potentially place Americans at severe financial risk because they are inherently political, completely subjective, and lack transparency. AAF is determined to shine a light on these progressive policies and restore our free markets.”

On May 31, 2022, AAF submitted a FOIA request to the SEC seeking documents pertaining to potential conflicts of interest present in offering ESG-related products and services.

These conflicts of interest were identified in a January 2022 report compiled by SEC staff, who identified “several areas of potential risk to [credit ratings agencies]” including “the potential risk for conflicts of interest if a [credit rating agency] offers ratings and non-ratings ESG products and services.”

AAF has serious concerns that providing ESG-related products and services conflict with the credit rating agencies’ goals of credibility and reliability and believes that credit rating agencies (or Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, NRSROs) should be fully transparent about how they determine ESG factors and the specific social and political goals and ideologies they pursue. The current lack of transparency is a potential reason that Russian energy companies Gazprom and Rosneft received more favorable ESG scores from S&P than their American counterparts (Exxon and Chevron), even though the Russian government owns or exercises a plurality of shares of the former companies.

This FOIA request intends to provide the American public with information about the SEC’s oversight of ESG-related products and services, and to provide the American public with the information necessary to understand whether the SEC under the Biden Administration is placing progressive political and social policy goals over the economic interest of the American people.

AAF specifically seeks the release of the following records:

Any and all records of policy or procedure directives, guidance documents, memoranda, or similar records created by the SEC or its staff relating to or concerning the oversight of ESG-related products and services, including records of communications between the SEC and other Executive Departments or Agencies, the White House, or the Executive Office of the President;

Any and all records of policy or procedure directives, guidance documents, memoranda, or similar records, relating to, concerning, governing, or informing the determination of the SEC staff in its January 2022 report that the offering of ESG-related products and services by NRSROs presents the potential risk for conflicts of interest; and

Any and all records relating to or concerning communications between the SEC (including those communications where the SEC is copied or blind copied) and any other entity concerning the potential risk for conflicts of interest if an NRSRO offers ESG products and services, including any such disclosures from NRSROs or their affiliates to the SEC or inquiries from the SEC to NRSROs or their affiliates about potential conflicts of interest.

AAF founder and former Vice President Mike Pence recently wrote a Wall Street Journal op-Ed titled, “Republicans Can Stop ESG Political Bias.” The op-Ed implores states to “pass model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council requiring government pension-fund managers to vote the state’s shares, rather than delegating that authority to huge Wall Street firms” and suggests that “[s]tate and local governments should entrust their money to managers that don’t work against their residents’ best interests.

https://www.conservativehq.org/post/former-vice-president-mike-pence-at-work-rooting-out-esg-political-bias-in-biden-administration

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

Persistent Lies about Green Power

When drug companies try to sell you a particular cure for what ails you, the television ads typically consist of 10 seconds of saying how good the drug is and 20 seconds of disclaimers and warnings about possible negative side effects. If only renewable energy companies were that honest!

To my great annoyance and disgust, a power company in Texas promises the state’s electricity users can choose a plan that delivers electricity 24 hours a day powered by the sun. Solar power.

As anyone exercising an ounce of common sense must realize, that is a lie. As sunny as Texas and much of the southwestern United States are, the sun doesn’t shine 24 hours a day anywhere on Earth. That means the electric power you use at night or during cloudy or rainy days is coming from other sources.

It is not until you go to the company’s website or call them that you get to see the disclaimers in the fine print. What they are really selling you is a plan that purchases renewable energy credits equivalent to 24 hour a day of solar. That’s not at all the same as purchasing solar power.

In fact, the credits may be awarded for generation by wind turbines, biofuel production, biomass burning, or even sales of electric vehicles. Or it could be a combination of these. It could even be fraudulent, as past carbon offset credit schemes have so often proven to be.

Numerous scammers have claimed to generate green energy credits but do not actually undertake or complete the projects that are supposed to offset the carbon dioxide emissions and generate the credits. They have bilked taxpayers and investors out of billions of dollars. What homeowner or business buying 24-hour solar would know whether the renewable energy credits are being purchased by the company and reducing emissions?

The only thing we can say for sure about this so-called solar plan is that it is not providing 24-hour-a-day solar. Most of the time the electricity is probably being generated by another source, which in Texas is likely to be natural gas, coal, or nuclear.

Misleading advertising and outright fraud are all too common among companies and politicians promoting green energy schemes. Two of the biggest scams are biofuels and biomass burning for electric power.

Trees are carbon sinks, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for photosynthesis and storing it in their limbs, roots, and trunks. When trees are cut down, they cease to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and what is left behind after logging, as it decomposes, releases stored CO2 back into the air. Numerous studies show when waste materials or even whole trees are processed to make usable wood pellets for fuel, more CO2 is released. Even more is released when the wood pellets, waste timber, and whole trees are burned to produce power.

Even if new trees are planted, they remove carbon dioxide only slowly over time, as opposed to the immediate release when they are burned. As a result, “[i]t takes decades of regrowth to offset the carbon released in burning before the net addition of carbon to the air even equals the amount released if power plants had just used fossil fuels,” wrote the Los Angeles Times (LAT) a couple of years ago. Meanwhile, even more trees are being harvested for fuel, carbon dioxide sequestration declines, and atmospheric CO2 levels increase.

Burning wood to provide electricity “produces two to three times as much carbon per kilowatt hour as burning coal or natural gas. … To replace just 2% of the world’s fossil fuels with more wood would require doubling the commercial harvest of trees,” concluded the LAT, which would devastate the world’s forest ecosystems and biodiversity while removing a huge carbon sink.

And that’s when the companies keep their promises to plant new trees, maintain the forests, and ensure the trees grow to maturity. The news is even worse when, as detailed in a recent BBC story, the claim of tree planting is itself fraudulent, whether allegedly for biofuel replacement or as a direct carbon dioxide removal/carbon credit scheme. Sometimes money is collected and credits are given but no trees planted. In other cases, the trees are planted in unsuitable locations or are the wrong species for the site, and the trees die. The dead trees then add carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere as they decompose. In the Philippines and India, grand tree planting programs were funded by the sale of carbon dioxide credits, only to have those in charge of the program abandon the “forests” once the saplings were in the ground. In the Philippine case, an audit found 88 percent of the trees failed. I’m not typically a gambling man, but I would wager that 100 percent of the carbon credits were cashed in.

Criminal and civil enforcement of these agreements is almost entirely absent, because no agency with authority exists or no common method for determining the amount of carbon dioxide “removed” is determined in advance for most of these schemes, especially with international programs. As a result, corporations get away with greenwashing on a massive scale, making self-congratulatory claims of being carbon-neutral or moving that way, while emitting the same or even more emissions than they had before grandly taking up the “climate fight.” Often it’s simply hard to account for or track the success of the claims. In other cases, corporations’ assertions of going green consist of nothing more than a series of claims made in a PR campaign. Rarely are these statements investigated and confirmed. In the rare cases where greenwashing is exposed, the common practice is for the companies to issue a mea culpa. They say, in effect, “Okay, you caught us cheating, but we’re serious this time, and we’ll really start to get green now.” Little or no penalty results from these scams—maybe a donation/payoff to a radical green group. Often no concerted, consistent investigation of the follow-through on their new green commitment is undertaken.

As for biofuels, they no longer typically require more energy to produce than they deliver, thanks to technological improvements and increased efficiencies, but it is still doubtful they produce net benefits for the environment or the climate. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency writes,

[B]ecause many biofuel feedstocks require land, water, and other resources, research suggests that biofuel production may give rise to several undesirable effects. Potential drawbacks include changes to land use patterns that may increase GHG emissions, pressure on water resources, air and water pollution, and increased food costs. Depending on the feedstock and production process and time horizon of the analysis, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy-equivalent basis. Biofuels also tend to require subsidies and other market interventions to compete economically with fossil fuels, which creates deadweight losses in the economy.

In addition, because the dominant biofuel—ethanol—contains less energy than an equivalent amount of regular gasoline, vehicles’ fuel mileage declines as ethanol is added to the mix. As a result, more fuel is used than would have been consumed without the biofuel.

While the expansion of green energy is not reducing overall carbon dioxide emissions or preventing climate change (as if that were possible), it is wreaking havoc in electric power systems in the United States and abroad. In California, the United States as a whole, India, and elsewhere, dozens of stories have been published in recent months warning of widespread electric power shortages already occurring or looming, as the supply of reliable electric power wanes because dozens of fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydroelectric power plants are being prematurely closed and replaced with wind, solar, and sometimes a small percentage of battery backup.

Wind and solar power are particularly unsuited to supply modern, interconnected power systems because they work only when the weather conditions are just right.

A large-scale power grid consists of two segments: baseload power and peaking power. Baseload power is the minimum amount of energy needed for the grid to function properly while delivering power on demand to every user who needs it during a normal day. The grid requires a fairly consistent flow of power. Coal, nuclear, and to a lesser extent natural gas have, for a century or more, served developed nations’ baseload demand because they operate full-time, with onsite backup to provide power during routine maintenance or breakdowns.

Peaking power is the additional power needed when the system is faced with unusually high demand, such as during the summers in the southern United States, Asia, and India, and during the cold winters in northern states and Scandinavian countries. Natural gas, where available, often serves to provide peaking power because natural gas plants can be built to scale, fuel can usually be delivered as needed, and facilities can be cycled on and off quickly as needed.

Neither wind nor solar can be relied on for either baseload or peaking power. Wind turbines generate power only when the wind blows between certain speeds, and the power they generate fluctuates constantly with wind gusts. Solar provides no power at night or when the cells are covered by snow, ice, or soot, and it provides reduced power on cloudy days and during storms. Except on completely cloudless days with clear skies, the power generated by solar panels fluctuates second-by-second with the passage of clouds.

Both solar and wind require baseload power systems to run constantly at less-than-peak levels, to regulate the flow of fluctuating power delivered to the grid from turbines and solar panels when they are operating and to take up the slack during periods when either or both sources of weather-dependent power shut down.

States in India are restarting previously closed coal-fueled power plants to avoid widespread outages across the country and are opening new coal mines and reopening old ones. In greener-than-thou, blackout-plagued California, the state government warned residents to expect more blackouts this year and beyond. Regulators there are allowing thousands of backup diesel generators to remain on standby and available for use during all-too-common green power shortfalls and emergencies.

Public relations campaigns and activists’ claims to the contrary, green energy isn’t that green, and it certainly isn’t good for consumers.

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/06/climate-change-weekly-437-persistent-lies-about-green-power/

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

Hydrogen hot air

When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared in his election victory speech that his new government would work to make Australia ‘a green energy superpower’, those who knew anything about the problems involved groaned aloud.

Australia is already a major power in energy markets as it has vast reserves of coal and natural gas that other countries want, despite all the talk about net zero, and which can be easily transported. Renewable energy is different. Every country can generate its own energy, with equipment imported from China, and it is far more difficult to transport over long distances.

Admittedly some countries have less space for such activities, such as Singapore, Japan and the UK, but renewable energy activists are full of ideas for offshore wind generators and even floating generators, or photovoltaic panels on every rooftop and never mind what happens in the rainy season. They also all want to be energy superpowers, or ‘the Saudi Arabia of wind’ as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnston put it when he announced plans to build yet more offshore wind turbines around the UK.

In other words, why would any country buy expensive energy from Australia when they can generate their own expensive energy, especially as the problems of transporting energy many thousands of kilometres from Australia wind farms and solar installations will add greatly to the cost of that energy?

This point was forcefully made by renewable energy advocate Andrew Blakers, a professor of engineering at the Australian National University, on the Conversation in early April. He says that the federal government has already set aside hundreds of millions of dollars to help create a major green hydrogen export industry, particularly to Japan, for which Australia signed an export deal in January. However, he also points out that Japan has more than enough solar and wind energy to be self-sufficient in energy and – assuming all that energy is harnessed – does not need to import either fossil fuels or Australian green hydrogen. Whether or not you agree with Professor Blakers that Japan can realistically meet all of its energy needs from local renewable energy the country can certainly generate hydrogen locally.

In fact, Japan is already doing so with a government-supported facility for producing hydrogen derived from a token 20 MW of solar power, which started operating in March 2020. (Major coal power plants generate 2,000 MW plus.) The resulting small parcels of the gas are shipped in hydrogen tube trailers to be used in stationary fuel-cell systems and in specially adapted cars and buses. This is hardly world shattering but it far more than Australia is doing at the moment. However, Japan has pledged to develop the first full-scale hydrogen supply chain and is interested in importing the fuel, having built the Suiso Frontier, the first ship in the world designed to carry hydrogen. This has shipped one load of hydrogen from Australia which was produced using steam and natural gas, the usual method of producing hydrogen for industrial processes and far cheaper than using electrolysis (sticking two bare ends of wire attached to the same power source into water).

The Suiso shipment in January attracted some media attention without the stories noting that the shipment only involved a test quantity of around 70 tonnes. A good-sized LNG carrier will take 72,000 tonnes. The exercise would also have represented a net power loss, for the process of making, condensing and shipping hydrogen is known to be technically challenging and wasteful.

Professor Blakers cites an estimate that converting energy to hydrogen, shipping it to where it is needed and then converting back into energy could consume 70 per cent of the energy generated. Michael Liebreich, a senior contributor to BloombergNEF (new energy finance) wrote in 2020 that as an energy storage medium, hydrogen has only a 50 per cent round-trip efficiency – far worse than batteries. As a source of heat, he estimates that hydrogen costs four times as much as natural gas. Hydrogen pipelines also cost three times as much as power lines.

Activists who talk so glibly about using hydrogen to store energy are no doubt thinking of liquid natural gas, which is now the basis of a thriving international trade using purpose-built container vessels. The international trade in LNG, in which Australia is a major player, started growing in the 1960s with the large-scale adoption of techniques for liquifying the gas in giant facilities called ‘trains’ and for keeping it liquid for long periods in what amounts to giant thermos bottles. LNG requires low temperatures, minus 160 degrees centigrade, but the gas itself is a source of energy and some of that energy can be used to power the liquification process. Once at that temperature the liquid form of the gas can be stored relatively safely at atmospheric pressures.

But hydrogen is not methane. It is a much smaller molecule so seals and pipes that would comfortably prevent methane leakage do not keep hydrogen in. The liquification temperature for hydrogen is also much lower, specifically minus 253 degrees centigrade or just 14 degrees above what physicists call absolute zero – you can’t get any colder – requiring considerably more energy to achieve and maintain. The Suiso Frontier cargo was liquified in a special facility that was powered from the grid. Hydrogen is also a considerably more dangerous gas than methane. Transmission lines are safer, but the same problem with demand arises. One group has been trying to raise interest in building a $16 billion transmission line from northern Australia to Singapore for years. But if the Singaporeans felt the need for intermittent energy why not take it from neighbouring Malaysia which also has all sorts of schemes to generate green energy and transmission would not be so expensive? While activists are on the subject, they could calculate just how much intermittent energy would have to be transmitted over the proposed line to justify the investment.

But as demonstrated by the suspension of senior HSBC executive Stuart Kirk by HSBC pending an internal investigation into a presentation he made at an event, the Financial Times Moral Money Summit, in late May, reality in renewable energy debate is not the issue. Kirk’s presentation, entitled ‘Why investors need not worry about climate risk,’ pointed out that most of the projections of economic loss due to climate change either have to fudge the figures or come up with numbers that are too small over the long periods involved to matter at all. Among other valid points in his presentation, Kirk likened the climate crisis to the Y2K bug that predicted a widespread computer glitch at the turn of the millennium and declared that ‘unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are always wrong’. But as far as the greens are concerned reality and economic analysis are simply not relevant.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/06/hydrogen-hot-air/

Friday, June 10, 2022

We Saved Diablo Canyon!

Michael Shellenberger

It took rolling black-outs, a change in public consciousness, and my run for governor, but our six-year long effort to save Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California has finally succeeded!

Our victory should give hope to pro-nuclear people everywhere. If we can save nuclear power in California, the birthplace of the anti-nuclear movement, then we can save nuclear anywhere.

Viewed as politically radioactive just a decade ago, after the Fukushima accident, nuclear power is today coming back in a big way. The pro-nuclear movement is growing like gangbusters in even hostile nations like Belgium, Germany, and Australia. The world’s largest economies including Japan, Britain, and France are returning to nuclear energy. And it is becoming increasingly clear to liberals and conservatives alike that only nuclear can achieve global prosperity and environmental sustainability.

The main reason for the success of the pro-nuclear movement is the failure of renewables and the global energy crisis. The share of global energy from fossil fuels is unchanged since 1980 because solar and wind do not replace fossil fuel power plants, and, in fact, depend upon them. Only baseload hydro-electric and nuclear power plants can replace fossil fuels. And over-investment in unreliable renewables and underinvestment in nuclear, hydro-electricity, and natural gas, over the last decade, directly resulted in today’s energy shortages, skyrocketing electricity prices, and a return to coal around the world.

Because we were lost in soft, renewable energy delusions while Putin was grounded in the hard physical reality of nuclear, oil, & natural gas

But there is another reason for the pro-nuclear movement’s success that may come as a surprise. For decades, nuclear energy supporters have promoted the idea that nuclear energy is a compliment to intermittent solar and wind energies. Pro-nuclear people have argued that we should emphasize the risk of climate apocalypse for why nations should build nuclear plants. And nuclear boosters have argued that, when educating policymakers, journalists, and the public about the technology, we should emphasize the deficiencies of existing nuclear plants, and promote next generation technologies.

As an outsider to the nuclear science and technical community, these arguments made increasingly little sense to me, as time passed. Natural gas and hydroelectric dams are compliments to intermittent solar and wind, because their output can be easily and efficiency turned up or down, whereas nuclear plants are most efficiently run at full-power. Climate change is real but climate alarmism is dishonest and alienates many people who support nuclear energy for other reasons. And futuristic nuclear plants are a long ways off, which means it’s misleading at best, and self-destructive at worst, to hype nuclear technologies that only exist on paper.

The most important thing is to tell the truth about nuclear, I argued to friends and colleagues, starting in 2016, and build an honest pro-nuclear movement worldwide around the truth. Anti-nuclear people have been lying about the technology for decades. For pro-nuclear people to have any credibility, we must tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about nuclear power. And we must build our movement on the basis of the truth, and push back against those who exaggerate climate change, who suck up to the renewable energy industry like battered wives, and who sell fairy tales about magical nuclear reactors.

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/we-saved-diablo-canyon

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

How a battery shortage is hampering the U.S. switch to wind, solar power

U.S. renewable energy developers have delayed or scrapped several big battery projects meant to store electrical power on the grid in recent months, scuttling plans to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar energy.

At least a dozen storage projects meant to support growing renewable energy supplies have been postponed, canceled or renegotiated as labor and transport bottlenecks, soaring minerals prices, and competition from the electric vehicle industry crimp supply.

One previously unreported dispute over a delayed California storage project has even wound up in court.

The slowdown in utility-scale battery installations threatens the pace of the U.S. transition away from fossil fuels as the Biden administration seeks to decarbonize the grid by 2035. The delays could pose a threat to power reliability in states that already depend heavily on renewable energy like California.

Storing power is considered vital to the expansion of solar and wind energy because it allows electricity generated when the sun is shining or wind is blowing to be used at the end of the day when consumers need it most.

The delays span states including California, Hawaii and Georgia, with battery providers including Tesla (TSLA.O) and Fluence (FLC.AX) warning of disruptions to supply, according to a review of regulatory documents, corporate statements and interviews with project developers and power providers.

The delays, some of which have not been previously reported, range from several months to a year, according to the Reuters reporting.

"I have not seen a nascent industry challenged on so many fronts," said Jamal Burki, president of IHI Terrasun Solutions, the U.S. energy storage arm of Japanese heavy equipment maker IHI Corp (7013.T).

European energy storage projects are also facing delays, but that region lags the United States in the development of grid-scale storage, making the issue less pronounced.

Ben Guest, fund manager at Gresham House Energy Storage Fund (GRID.L), which invests in battery projects in Britain, said he has seen two- to three-month delays in projects primarily due to component shortages and shipping challenges.

Energy storage makes up about 3% of U.S. operating clean energy capacity and has been growing rapidly. Installations soared 170% in the first quarter to 758 megawatts, according to the American Clean Power Association, roughly enough capacity to power 144,000 homes.

But the pace is dipping below forecasts. Energy research firm Wood Mackenzie told Reuters it may revise down its current outlook for U.S. storage installations of 5.9 GW this year because of the rising evidence of market disruptions, after 2021 installations came in at about two-thirds of what it initially expected.

Prices for lithium-ion batteries, three-quarters of which are produced in China, have soared as much as 20% since last year as lithium and nickel costs rise, COVID-19 lockdowns disrupt manufacturing, and transport constraints slow shipments.

Robust demand from EV producers for batteries has also been a headwind, industry players told Reuters. Battery manufacturers are favoring the EV market because their orders are more predictable compared to the lumpy, project-based orders from power storage developers.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/how-battery-shortage-is-hampering-us-switch-wind-solar-power-2022-06-09

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

The power struggle: inconvenient truth proves renewables can’t cut it

Australia’s low-emissions energy journey is locked in a struggle between engineering and hope.

The nation has lost its way on energy because it has failed to think long term, excluded emerging technologies from the discussion, and refused to learn the lessons of failure from elsewhere.

Debate this week about how a capacity market should work to keep the lights on and industry in business underscores the point.

Too many people with too little understanding have turned a problem of physics and engineering into one of politics and economics. The breakdown in electricity supply is as serious as it has been predictable. Engineers know that grinding the coal sector into the ground won’t make renewables produce electricity when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. Leaving gas in the ground, as NSW and Victoria have done, won’t power a back-up supply. Stealing back supplies of gas from companies that have contracted to sell it elsewhere will compound the problems.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has fired back at the Coalition over their push for Labor to…
Governments generally don’t last long enough to reap the product of the chaos they sow. But new governments should learn the mistakes of others.

Contrary to popular opinion, Germany’s transition away from nuclear power has not been fuelled by wind and solar. It has been powered by greater use of brown coal and a dependence on Russian Gas. Power shortages in South Australia, California, Texas, UK and Europe all share a common feature, a naive hope that renewable energy will do the job it is not equipped to do.

Politicians have been cowered into supporting solutions they don’t understand. No serious thinker believes it’s economically sensible to firm up a national grid with batteries but a whole industry is willing to take government money to give it a try.

It might well be an expensive fix for individual households, but not industry. Spending billions to extend the national grid is based on the premise that the wind will always be blowing somewhere. The reality is this is not necessarily the case.

Hydrogen is a promising technology but experts who have worked in the field maintain it is a dangerous substance, difficult to contain and invisible when it burns. From an environmental perspective, the vast amount of materials and area of land needed to attempt what is being proposed using wind, solar, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen and transmission lines does not meet the cost/benefit test. A bigger concern is electricity is only a small part of the challenge ahead. Bigger and more important for industry is process heat, something that wind and solar can never deliver.

Alinta Energy chief executive Jeff Dimery belled the cat this week that the energy crisis was caused by chaotic market planning that had swamped the country with renewables that in turn made coal uncompetitive.

“We’re committing economic suicide if we rush and try to do it too quickly when we haven’t got the alternative supplies in place,” he told a Melbourne conference.

To illustrate the point, he said renewable energy plants in South Australia last Wednesday at 6.15pm were producing one megawatt of electricity, a tiny fraction of capacity. There was no wind in Victoria either.

“So it wouldn’t have mattered if you doubled the capacity of the transmission, and it wouldn’t have mattered if you quadrupled the capacity of intermittent generation. Without coal and gas, the lights would have gone out in South Australia, that is a fact,” he said.

Watching on, as the nation’s energy thinkers look for Band-Aid solutions to potentially fatal conditions in the energy market is the former head of Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Adi Paterson, who has also commercialised pioneering research on lithium ion batteries and participated hydrogen policy work in South Africa.

Paterson says the nation is locked in a false struggle. “This debate has become about economics and the universal law of economics is that it does not trump physics,” he says.

“We have the burden of explaining more clearly to people what the real energy choices look like. Carbon-free process heat is a much bigger problem than electricity. And the fundamental problem is, if we are going to electrify everything, we are going to need reliable, predictable, ‘always-on’ electricity for a rational society to function.

“With the energy cost issues, people are starting to see that when you take the baseload out the costs go up.”

He said it was important to have an intergenerational view of the problem: “We do not have to do it all in 10 years. In the next century, I believe, if we just take off the false time problem, we will be looking for the highest density of energy we can get, and at the top of that pile is nuclear fusion.”

There are critics who can point to decades of promises but the world is looking to new-generation nuclear reactors and fusion to solve the problem of low-emissions electrification to run a developed industrial economy.

In the domain of nuclear fission, the first small-scale modular nuclear reactor by a US firm NuScale is under construction and will be completed this decade.

The US National Academies road map has set a time line to build nuclear fusion reactors from 2035. Australian company HB11 Energy, of which Paterson is a director, is leading the world in exploring nuclear fusion using a new generation of high-energy lasers. The technology won a Nobel prize for the inventors and can bring decades of theory into reality.

HB11 Energy is looking at the 2040s to have a plant operating based on the principles of inertial fusion using lasers.

Despite this, nuclear fission and fusion technology are not part of Australia’s official energy discussion. Jim Chalmers, says he has ruled out nuclear energy because “the economics don’t stack up”.

The Treasurer said he had never been a supporter of nuclear power and would maintain his opposition to it, which was “economic not ideological”.

Paterson says this view misunderstands the problem.

“There is a tendency to oversimplify,” he says. “I think the fundamental problem of wind and solar is it is highly accessible to the domestic consumer but most of what is useful in our society we don’t really understand. You can win an argument by saying solar, wind and batteries because people understand it.

“I think we need to have this discussion about fission and fusion as a low-cost source of electrons because it gives us predictability and optionality.

“It will give us a stab at solving the energy problem not just the electricity problem. The question for wind, solar and batteries is ‘Where is the process heat?’

“If we solve the issue of nuclear fusion plants – because they will also provide process heat for industry – they will be the anchor tenant of most modern economies from about 2060.”

This line might not suit the catastrophisation narrative of a climate emergency. But at least it might just work.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/in-the-dark-on-the-power-struggle-inconvenient-truth-proves-renewables-cant-cut-it/news-story/c27c87f70c854bc5cf5a7e867c3b01f6

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

The dismal history of wildfire prevention in Australia

We once knew how

Three consecutive extreme summers accompanied the Settlement Drought of 1790-93. Masses of flying foxes and lorikeets dropped dead in Parramatta during three days of blistering northwesterly gales with temperatures above 43 degrees Celsius. Aboriginal fires were burning 24/7 but there were no fire disasters.

Our first megafire, around 1820, established the Great Scrub of South Gippsland after Aboriginal burning was disrupted by a 1789 smallpox epidemic. Following European occupation, five million hectares of Victoria exploded in the Black Thursday disaster of 1851. The Strzelecki Ranges were incinerated again on Red Tuesday 1898.

When the Highlands were set alight in extreme weather on Black Friday 1939. Fourteen large fires in East Gippsland did little damage because the land was managed by grazing and burning. In 1961, four towns in Western Australia were destroyed by the Dwellingup fires. Foresters woke up, reintroduced broad area burning, and developed aerial ignition techniques. Bega was saved from disaster in the horrendous 1968 fires by prior aerial burning in what is now wilderness to the northwest.

In the 1970s, ecologists had a dream that species that thrived through about 40,000 years of Aboriginal burning would be wiped out by mild fires. Prescribed burning was reduced and the Hume-Snowy Bushfire Prevention Scheme was disbanded.

In 2003, lightning strikes started many fires in and around Kosciuszko National Park. Fires in managed areas outside the park were all rounded up within three days. Fires in the park went on to destroy nearly 500 homes in Canberra and claim four human lives.

The parliamentary inquiry into A Nation Charred took evidence from land managers and:

‘Heard a consistent message right around Australia:- there has been grossly inadequate hazard reduction burning on public lands for far too long; local knowledge and experience is being ignored by an increasingly top heavy bureaucracy.’

A dissenting report relied heavily on information from Professor Robert Whelan of Wollongong University who claimed that ‘broad scale hazard reduction is threatening biodiversity conservation and must therefore be avoided by land managers and resisted at a political level’.

South-eastern bureaucracies boycotted the Nairn Inquiry and set up a Council of Australian Governments Inquiry under an emergency manager, Professor Whelan, and another professor. They gave us ‘learning to live with bushfires’ – education, emergency response, and evacuation instead of sustainable fire management.

Since COAG 2004, more than 200 people have been killed in bushfires.

Whelan set up a bushfire ‘research’ industry at Wollongong University which eventually became the core of NSW Bushfire Research Hub. The academics made models supposedly showing that prescribed burning doesn’t work in the southeast because it’s biogeographically different from the southwest, where 60 years of real data have proved its effectiveness. They said that, in any case, prior burning has no effect under extreme conditions.

The long-term operational data from Western Australia show that burning is ineffective unless a minimum of around 9 per cent of the landscape is treated each year. The effects last up to six years. So prescribed burning is effective when at least half the landscape is being maintained. In the southeast, the figure has been around 1 per cent per annum. The real data also show that the positive effects of maintenance apply particularly in severe seasons, by preventing the development of unstoppable firestorms.

Authorities in the southeast use models to target the miniscule amount of prescribed burning around the edges of suburbia. They are, in effect, creating supposed firebreaks. The scientific and historical evidence is crystal clear that firebreaks, fire engines, and waterbombers can’t stop firestorms coming from unmanaged land. The world record Gospers Mountain fire of half a million hectares started from one lightning strike in the Wollemi Wilderness.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/the-incredible-international-fire-climate-conference

Thursday, June 09, 2022

European Union upholds proposed 2035 ban on new petrol and diesel cars

A good opportunity for China if it happens. But it won't. To implement it, agreement from all EU member states would be needed -- and at least some of the Eastern states would object

Representatives from the European Union have rejected pressure from the auto industry and voted to uphold a proposed ban on new internal-combustion engine (ICE) cars from 2035.

An amendment had been presented to the European Parliament which would have required manufacturers to have reduced new-car emissions by 90 per cent by 2035, according to Automotive News Europe, rather than the full 100 per cent originally proposed by the European Commission in 2021.

However, the 100 per cent target was upheld. While the ban has yet to be written into law, many European carmakers have already indicated their intentions to drop ICE vehicles by 2030 or sooner.

Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, Renault, Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Ford, and Mini are all set to switch to battery power in their European-market models by the end of the decade, with many others brands set to follow in the early 2030s.

Despite the announcements from car companies, lawmakers in the bloc were unsuccessfully lobbied by automotive associations to reduce the 2035 ban on ICE cars to 90 per cent.

This latest vote cements the European Commission’s position ahead of upcoming negotiations with member states before the law is finalised

https://www.drive.com.au/news/eu-upholds-proposed-2035-petrol-diesel-ban/

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

Deadly Summer Blackouts Inevitable As Renewables Struggle To Replace Reliable Energy

Americans will need to brace for deadly blackouts under a hotter-than-usual summer, warned a major energy non-profit in a sobering report last week.

On Wednesday, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) released its annual summer assessment covering June through September with grim predictions of repeated blackouts throughout the country. The entire western United States, along with a majority of the Midwest, Texas, and the western south, face “high” or “elevated” risks of “energy emergencies” brought by severe drought, unreliable solar, and supply chain issues hampering conventional sources.

“We’ve been doing this for close to 30 years,” NERC Director of Reliability Assessment and Performance Analysis John Moura told CBS News. “This is probably one of the grimmest pictures we’ve painted in a while.”

Last week, the summer outlook from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast temperatures above what the agency considers normal compared to the prior 143 years with relatively low precipitation across much of the west and the plains.

Lack of water and higher-than-normal temperatures are expected to stress the nation’s power grid beyond capacity. Low water levels, the NERC emphasizes, will limit plants’ ability to keep cool while directly reducing power generated by hydroelectric dams.

“Energy output from hydro generators throughout most of the Western United States is being affected by widespread drought and below-normal snowpack,” the authors wrote.

Solar panels, on the other hand, will be unable to generate power from the sun once clouded out by smoke from wildfires, seemingly worse every year as a consequence of negligent land management. Critically, Moura told BNN Bloomberg the early retirement of fossil fuel plants shares much of the blame for this year’s vulnerabilities in the nation’s energy infrastructure.

“The pace of our grid transformation is out of sync,” Moura told the paper as President Joe Biden rushes to promote unreliable renewables in the place of reliable, lower-cost coal and natural gas. At the same time, the Biden administration is shutting down domestic energy projects in the form of fossil fuels even as gas prices continue to reach new records daily.

Larry Behrens, the communications director for the energy non-profit Power the Future, blamed the coming blackouts on “the failed green agenda,” highlighting New Mexico as a prime example.

“In New Mexico, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has forced the state to embrace her own ‘mini’ Green New Deal and now the state faces blackouts as reliable power is abandoned while hard-working men and women lose their jobs,” Behrens told The Federalist.

Grisham signed the climate package in 2019 during her first year in office. It mandates state electricity completely carbon-free by 2045. PNM, the state’s largest power provider, warned of outages in February.

“Make no mistake,” Behrens added, “this is all a man-made energy crisis on the part of leaders who worship at the altar of the green agenda while plunging our country into the dark ages.”

California and Texas have already begun to experience periodic blackouts as a consequence of a rushed transition to intermittent power sources by wind and solar. The rolling blackouts in California fueled in part the September recall effort against Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Power outages are deadly episodes, especially during heat waves when air conditioning no longer becomes available to the elderly. Last summer, officials in Washington attributed the deaths of two women in their 60s to overheating as regional energy distributors implemented rolling blackouts due to overwhelming demand amid a heatwave. Legacy outlets wrongly blamed climate change for the high temperatures.

https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/24/report-deadly-summer-blackouts-inevitable-as-renewables-struggle-to-replace-reliable-energy/

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

Beware: 100% green energy could destroy the planet

The untold story about “green energy” is that it can’t possibly be scaled up to provide anywhere near the energy to replace fossil fuels. (Unless we are headed back to the stone ages, which is what some of the “de-growth” advocates favor).

Right now, the United States gets 70% of its energy from fossil fuels. To go to zero over the next 20 years would be economically catastrophic and cost tens of millions of jobs. With gas prices at nearly double their price back from when Trump left office and inflation up from 1.5% to 8% in just 15 months, we are already experiencing the economic damage from the green energy crusaders.

But we also have to ask whether green energy is even good for the environment. Some environmentalists are pointing to a little-noticed study by the World Bank showing that moving toward 100% solar, wind, and electric battery energy would be “just as destructive to the planet as fossil fuels.” This was precisely the conclusion of a story in Foreign Policy magazine, hardly a right-wing publication.

According to the Foreign Policy analysis, moving to a “carbon-free” energy future “requires massive amounts of energy, not to mention the extraction of minerals and metals at great environmental and social costs.”

Here are some of the numbers. Going all-in on batteries, solar, and wind would require

Thirty-four million metric tons of copper,

Forty million tons of lead,

Fifty million tons of zinc,

One hundred and sixty-two million tons of aluminum,

Four-point-eight billion tons of iron.

Those tens of millions of windmills, solar panels, and electric batteries for cars and trucks aren’t exactly biodegradable. So, we will have the most prominent energy graveyard with toxic pollutants that will be 100 times larger than any nuclear waste storage. And yet, the Left is worried about plastic straws!

I’m all for mining for America’s bountiful natural resources of copper, lead, magnesium, and precious metals. But, ironically, it’s the greens that want to shut down mines, which is like saying you want food, but you oppose farming. Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Then, the land space is needed for the windmills and solar panels. Bloomberg reports that getting to zero carbon by 2050 would require a land area equal to five South Dakotas “to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, and more.”

In other words, the liberals are calling for a full-scale industrialization of America’s wilderness and landscape.

Now, even many of the most liberal areas of the country are shouting “no” to green energy in their own backyard. Vermonters are rebelling against unsightly solar panels spoiling their views. According to the Bennington Banner, “Vermont’s utility regulator has rejected permits for two 2 MW solar farms proposed in Bennington, pointing to aesthetic concerns and current land conservation measures in the town plan.”

Meanwhile, a town in Wisconsin is suing state regulators to “stop construction” of what would be “the state’s largest solar project,” according to the Wisconsin Journal.

Even blue Massachusetts residents are fighting green energy projects. Off-shore wind farms are delayed off the coast of Cape Cod, where per capita income is nearly the highest in the country, because they don’t want their ocean views spoiled from their beach-front villas.

In other words, real nature lovers are finally starting to awaken to the reality that wind and solar aren’t so green after all. A nuclear plant takes up at most one square mile of land. Wind and solar farms require hundreds of thousands of acres. So, to provide enough electric power to keep Manhattan lit up at night would require paving over nearly the whole state of Connecticut with windmills and solar farms.

The public is starting to ask: How is any of this green? The Green New Deal strategy makes especially no sense given that by increasing our use of clean-burning and reliable natural gas, we are reducing energy prices AND cutting carbon emissions. Add nuclear power to the mix, and we wouldn’t need to start building wind and solar farms in our forests, deserts, and national parks.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beware-100-green-energy-could-destroy-the-planet

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

Australia: Poor to suffer as the climate wars bite

As Woke South Australian politicians last week declared a ‘climate emergency’, the reality of Australia’s ill-thought-out climate policy is biting families and businesses.

Regulators are warning of a shortage of gas and the possibility of electricity blackouts for no other reason than bad politics.

The Australian reports:

‘Regulators have warned Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania face potential gas shortages while power supplies in NSW and Queensland will be stretched over the next 24 hours, as (Treasurer) Jim Chalmers declared the economy confronted a “perfect storm’’ of energy price spikes.’

Our nation is blessed with some of the world’s most abundant reserves of energy, yet some people may not be able to heat their homes this winter and all of us are paying through the nose.

How did it come to this?

The answer lies in the shutting down of discussion on climate policy. This censorship has been as ruthless and premature as the shutting of coal-fired power stations which have not been replaced with a suitable or stable generating capacity.

Regardless of where one sits in the debate about the impact of small quantities of human-generated CO2 joining the vast array of naturally occurring CO2 in the atmosphere, it is an incontrovertible fact that our energy policies are driving prices through the roof and reliability through the floor.

Meanwhile, China keeps opening new coal-fired power stations, emitting more CO2 every 16 days than Australia’s entire annual contribution.

This will not stop any time soon.

Even our chief scientist said Australia’s contribution could not influence the temperature of the planet, yet politicians are happy for some pensioners to freeze this winter because they can’t afford their rising utility bills.

For sure, the war in Ukraine is having an impact on global prices, but that is driving the United Kingdom and Europe back to cheaper and more reliable fossil fuels while Australia jettisons reliable energy sources without a viable replacement plan.

The LNP’s Matt Canavan was not wrong to observe that Net Zero, as a policy aim in Europe, is dead.

Reality bites.

The UK is re-thinking plans to close coal mines because windmills and solar panels can’t do the job.

At this crucial moment for energy security, Australians from rich suburbs (who are largely insulated from rising electricity and gas prices) have populated our Parliament with un-costed demands to close fossil fuel generating capacity.

There is no consideration of, or debate about, the consequences.

What happens if there’s not enough power after the premature closures? They don’t know. Mumbling something about ‘battery storage’ isn’t going to cut it when the lights go out.

Even the new Nationals leader, David Littleproud, is turning Teal as out-going leader Barnaby Joyce now admits that Net Zero is not a realistic objective.

He wrote on Facebook this week:

‘Climate policy affects how much is in your wallet and this is becoming more and more evident each day. The question is, are you willing to pay the price for the policy?

When you pay for your power, you are paying for a 2050 target, when you pay for your petrol, you are paying for a 2050 target, when you buy groceries, you are paying for a 2050 target. Some people cannot afford the extra cost of a 2050 target and a 2030 target will massively exacerbate this. These people must be heard.

The nation cannot shut down its major exports, such as coal, gas, live cattle and sheep, losing hundreds of billions of export dollars and associated taxes, but still expect to have the same money for health, education, the NDIS, roads, communication, the arts and defence.’

It’s a shame he wasn’t writing this on Facebook when he was cajoling the Nationals Party room to get on board with Net Zero before then Prime Minister jetted off to the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow last year.

Discussions of ‘green’ policy consequences have not formed part of the election discourse. Politicians sadly kowtow to politically correct and Woke orthodoxy rather than telling us the truth – afraid it would lose them the votes of young apocalyptic ideologues.

But these energy shortages and price hikes are our moment of truth in what was a completely avoidable crisis.

We all want to help the environment, but we need a truthful debate about the costs versus the benefits.

To get that, we must put principled and courageous people in our parliaments.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/06/poor-to-suffer-as-the-climate-wars-bite/

Wednesday, June 08, 2022

State Officials Fight Wall Street to Protect Pensioners From ESG ‘Scam’

After failing to advance their agenda by passing laws in Congress, progressives have found that they can impose their will on Americans just as effectively through our financial system. And while some state officials have recently started to fight back, they are heavily outgunned.

The world’s largest asset managers, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard, have signed on to the global Net Zero Asset Management Initiative and together use the $20 trillion of other people’s money that they manage to pressure companies whose shares they own into pursuing environmental and social-justice causes. Progressive state pension fund managers in California, New York, Maryland, and even Texas are doing the same with the trillions in retirement funds that they manage.

The various elements of this ideology have come together under the umbrella of “environmental, social and governance” finance (ESG), and its advocates now include the world’s largest banks, asset managers, pension funds, rating agencies, proxy agents, as well as numerous international corporate clubs including Climate Action 100+, the Global Investors Statement to Governments on Climate Change, the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, and the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero.

ESG also has the support of the Biden Administration’s Securities and Exchange Commission, which announced it will require all listed companies to provide extensive reporting on their greenhouse gas emissions. It has the support of the Department of Justice, which just declared it would focus on “environmental justice,” and the Department of Labor, which announced it will no longer enforce a Trump-era regulation that barred private pension managers from including political causes such as ESG in their investment decisions.

The collective goal of these groups is to leverage their financial power to enforce the behavior that they want to see, targeting in particular fossil fuel producers and the gun industry. “Behaviors are going to have to change,” BlackRock CEO Larry Fink stated in a panel discussion last March. “You have to force behaviors and, at BlackRock, we are forcing behaviors.”

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager, with $10 trillion in assets under its management. In his 2022 letter to CEOs, Fink wrote that “every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a net zero world.” Bloomberg News reported that ESG financial assets are growing exponentially and will reach $50 trillion by 2025, representing more than one-third of the $140 trillion in assets under management worldwide.

But some state officials see the ESG movement as a misuse of money that was entrusted to asset managers by pensioners. A study by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research reported that ESG investing reduced the returns to pensioners by 0.70 to 0.90 percent per year, largely because ESG investment funds, which are actively managed, charge higher fees than non-managed index funds. This means higher profits for asset managers, less money for retirees.

BlackRock Chair and CEO Laurence D. Fink attends a session at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, on Jan. 23, 2020. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)
And for all the added costs, many question whether ESG investing is doing much for the causes it claims to support. A research report by Columbia University and the London School of Economics stated that companies in ESG funds have “worse track records for compliance with labor and environmental laws, relative to portfolio firms held by non-ESG funds.”

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently called ESG “an outrageous scam,” adding that “it has been weaponized by phony social justice warriors.”

“If BlackRock has their own money and they want to be activist investors, I think people have the right to deploy their own capital as they see fit,” said Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Treasurer. “The problem here is that it’s other people’s money they’re using, and people don’t want their retirement money used for political purposes.”

Increasingly, state officials are discovering how state pension money is being used to support “the religion of global climate change,” said Derek Kreifels, CEO of the State Financial Officers Foundation. “Now we’re seeing the veil drop on how they’re weaponizing it. Now they’re starting to include all these other [social] issues as well.”

Activist asset managers vote the shares they manage to influence corporate executives, and this explains to a great extent why Disney, a producer of family entertainment, now advocates for sex education in elementary schools; why Delta, Coca Cola, and Major League Baseball fought against Georgia’s voter I.D. law; and why Citibank has fought against laws restricting abortion in conservative states and has curtailed lending to gun makers and retailers—all of which are political causes that have nothing to do with running their businesses. The Wall Street Journal reports that activist asset managers are now putting pressure on Walmart, Lowe’s, and TJ Maxx to take a stand against abortion restrictions.

But for all the headline-grabbing statements from CEOs on political and social issues, progressive asset managers have been content to operate quietly behind the scenes in boardrooms, shareholder meetings, and global conferences.

“If they were ever to admit what they’re really doing, they would be creating untold liability for themselves,” Fitzpatrick said. “It’s inviting lawsuits galore for people who can say, ‘you have violated your financial duty to us.’”

“As an asset manager, the only thing you have is trust,” said Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks. “If you violate that trust, your business is gone. The investment managers that are pushing this agenda are ultimately risking the very franchise that they’re using to drive it.”

By colluding against fossil fuel companies, Oaks said, banks and asset managers “are actively implementing economic sanctions. We need more capital going into oil and gas production and there are great opportunities there to make money. Why isn’t the money going there? Why aren’t capital markets working, like they have in the past? It’s because of ESG.”

One by one, conservative states are starting to push back through legislation and legal actions. Kreifels said that 23 states have taken some form of action, 13 of which have introduced formal legislation, to prevent state money from being used to support political causes. This, The New York Times wrote, has had a “chilling” effect on progressive initiatives, though how much of an effect remains to be seen.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/state-officials-fight-wall-street-to-protect-pensioners-from-esg-scam_4512853.html

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

Biden Tackling Out of Control Gas Prices by Beginning Emergency Production - of Solar Panels

Instead of funneling resources to alleviate the pain of soaring gas prices in the U.S., the Biden administration has turned its focus to solar and clean energy.

President Joe Biden will authorize the Defense Production Act to boost the domestic manufacturing of solar panels, CNN reported.

The DFA will allow the Energy Department to speed up production of solar panel components, energy-efficient heat pumps, building insulation, electric transformers and other equipment needed to transform the power grid.

“The White House also announced it will leverage the power of the federal government’s purse for clean energy, using federal procurement to increase U.S. solar manufacturing,” CNN reported.

Along with the DFA, Biden is also using his executive powers to issue a 24-month tariff exemption on imports of solar panels and their parts, NBC News reported.

This tariff exemption is being put in place despite the Department of Commerce trying to run an investigation to look into whether Chinese solar manufacturers have been improperly funneling solar parts through other Asian countries, which has stalled the progress of solar energy in the U.S., NPR reported.

Biden seems intent on boosting solar and clean energy in the U.S. despite the complications.

But due to arguments about climate change and droughts that are causing problems in California, the Biden administration is taking this opportunity to focus on funneling money and manpower to clean energy initiatives.

“What we’re seeing is a confluence of the impacts of climate change — the droughts out West, for example, reducing the output of our hydropower resources,” an official said, CNN reported.

The official then added that it is crucial to deploy more clean energy, like solar, to make up for that lost electricity generation.

In the meantime, however, gas prices are continuing to climb. Americans are feeling the squeeze at the pump and are unhappy about it.

The national gas price average has climbed every day for several days. It is now $4.87 per gallon, AAA reported.

In fact, the price of gas has doubled since Biden took office in January 2021, the New York Post reported.

On Jan. 20, 2021, when Biden took office, the national average cost of a gallon of gas was $2.39.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/biden-tackling-control-gas-prices-beginning-emergency-production-solar-panels

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

UK: The great renewables ripoff

Back in March, the Energy and Climate Information Unit, a think tank funded by green billionaires, made a great deal of noise about so-called “negative subsidies” paid out under the Contracts for Difference Scheme. With market prices for electricity having soared, generators in the scheme found that they were having to pay back large sums of money into the scheme, rather than taking money from it as they normally do.

The sums involved are not insignificant. The net repayment into the scheme was £133 million in the final quarter of 2021, and the ECIU declared, somewhat breathlessly, that consumers have benefited to the tune of £660million by April 2023.

One small (well, rather large actually) problem with this claim was that the beneficiaries of these repayments were actually the electricity suppliers. That’s because the CfD scheme only dictates that the money gets that far: there is no mechanism in the legislation to return it to consumers. Essentially the scheme relies on market forces to bring prices down, but with the electricity supply market in dire financial straits, that isn’t going to happen any time soon. So consumers end up being ripped off.

But that’s not the only problem. At the start of April, the annual uplift to CfD prices kicked in, and a princely 7% or so was handed out across the board. The price increase has two components. The first is an indexation adjustment, which is another ripoff of consumers because only a very small percentage of a windfarm’s costs are subject to inflation. The second is an adjustment for increased grid charges. Since the increase is mostly down to the ever-expanding presence of windfarms on the grid, this is essentially a transfer of costs from guilty to the innocent. Another rip-off in other words.

The CfD strike price uplift was enough to wipe out negative subsidies for a few weeks. After that, there was a sudden collapse in gas prices, and therefore electricity market prices. While one might have hoped that this would filter through to consumers, this is certainly not the case in the CfD scheme, where the low prices meant that consumers were back to handing money over to windfarms. Old-fashioned subsidies have been running at £1-6 million per day to windfarms for a few weeks now. So yes, consumers are being ripped off again.

The ECIU’s £660 million figure, earned between October 2021 and April 2023 means an average daily rate of (minus) £1.1 million. The expectation would therefore have been that by now we should be at around £70 million of repayments. Instead of that, we are at £10 million, and in a few days time the cumulative position could be back to zero.

It’s ripoff after ripoff after ripoff.

https://www.netzerowatch.com/the-great-renewables-ripoff/

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

Australia: False promises of cost-of-living relief from renewable energy

How’s your first polar blast of winter going? So much for global warming. It’s enough to freeze the testicles off a brass monkey.

Even in Queensland, where winter is usually like a Pommy summer, the heaters and air conditioners are in overdrive as people seek refuge inside from the icy weather. And to make matters worse, we’re in the grip of a massive surge in power and gas prices. Some businesses have seen their gas costs quadruple in the past few months.

Experts blame the big rises on a global shortage of coal and gas. The Australian Energy Market Operator says wholesale prices are up 141 per cent in the past 12 months.

So much for promises of cost-of-living relief by our political leaders.

The fact is – when it comes to renewable energy driving down the cost of electricity – we’re being sold a pup.

For 15 years, we’ve heard mostly Labor and Greens MPs talking up the transition to renewables and how it will drive down power prices. I call bulldust. Power prices have escalated while we’re chasing renewable pipedreams.

Any politician who bobs up with an argument that our transition to net zero by 2050 will reduce electricity prices is talking rubbish.

Remember Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talking about helping with cost-of-living pressures during the election campaign? The politicians, frankly, are full of excrement on cost-of-living relief. There’s more chance of me playing five-eighth for the Blues on Wednesday than pollies driving down cost-of-living pressures.

The Milky Bar Kid, former PM Kevin Rudd, is the zero renewables muppet-in-chief.

When his predecessor, Liberal PM John Howard, brought in a renewable energy target in 2001, it was set at a tokenistic 2 per cent. When Rudd took office in December 2007, things changed.

By 2010, the Labor-Green Alliance had enshrined a 45,000GWh renewable target set for 2020 – 41,000 of which sat under the Large-Scale RET, and the balance under the Small-Scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). Had the 41,000 GWh LRET remained in place, it would have amounted to around 30 per cent of Australia’s electricity market in 2020.

“The message for coal, long-term globally, is down and out,” Rudd told Sky News in 2017. We need “a heavy mix of renewables”, which was why he was proud the government had introduced the renewable energy target.

Rudd upped the target by more than 450 per cent in an uncosted promise before the 2007 election. It was crazy, as the Productivity Commission politely tried to tell him in a 2008 submission. The target would not increase abatement but would impose extra costs and lead to higher prices.

It would favour wind and solar while holding back new ideas. Rudd, of course, knew better. Not for the last time, he ignored the Productivity Commission and pushed ahead with his renewable target of 45,000GWh by 2020, of which 41,000GWh would come from wind and solar.

If the policy was designed to punish Australian consumers, it was a roaring success. Household electricity bills increased by 92 per cent under the Rudd-Gillard governments, six times the level of inflation. Rudd went further, and further. He is close to Albanese.

The winter chills around power prices have only just begun.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/peter-gleeson/opinion-so-much-for-promises-of-costofliving-relief/news-story/6e66c215a091a0bea8de6f8d7dc3f2ff

Tuesday, June 07, 2022

Coral reef research

This article asssumes that bleaching is caused by temperature rises. There is a better case for believing that drying due to sea-level fluctuations is the primary cause

Coral reefs are important parts of the world’s ecology. They host a third of multi cellular marine species, including many commercially important fish. They also provide free coastal defences. Cities such as Cancun, Honolulu and Miami rely on them to keep the waves at bay. According to a study published in 2014 by Robert Costanza, an economist at University College, London, such benefits have a value of up to $10trn a year. Preserving reefs is thus of practical as well as aesthetic importance. So something needs to be done to stop heat-induced bleaching.

One approach is to identify species that are already heat-resistant and transfer them to reefs which are at risk. Some of the most spectacular examples of heat-resilient coral come from sites in the Gulf of Aqaba at the northern tip of the Red Sea, which is one of the hottest places on the planet. Several coral species found here can weather heat that would lead to mass bleaching elsewhere. A study published in 2021 by Romain Savary of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne showed that a particular Red Sea reef-builder called Stylophora pistillata was able to withstand rises in excess of 5°C above the 27°C at which it normally lives—a greater increase than Earth is expected to face this century.

Similar pockets of heat resistance might be expected to have evolved elsewhere, too. Anne Cohen of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, is responsible for a newly launched project which sets out to identify “super reefs” of this sort around the world. Using a mix of genetic analysis and hydrologic modelling, she aims to find reefs that are heat-resistant and genetically diverse, and therefore potentially able to restore neighbouring bleached sites to their former glory. She then hopes to expand protections for these reefs, in order to increase their chances of survival as heat-resistant resources for the future.

The evolution of resilience to heat is not, though, merely a matter of geography. It has also been found around the world in corals living cheek-by-jowl with more vulnerable specimens. This suggests its origins are complex. Christian Voolstra of the University of Konstanz, in Germany (who is also a coauthor of Dr Savary’s paper), is leading a project intended to identify the responsible parts of a coral’s genome.

Some don’t like it hot

To do this he subjects a range of corals to intense blasts of heat, to see how they fare. While this 18hour stress test, known as cbass (Coral Bleaching Automated Stress System), cannot capture the full effects of longterm bleaching, his hope is that the most bleach-resistant corals will nevertheless show their mettle in it.

Having established which corals are resilient, the next step is to search for genes or genetic variants that are shared by such corals but are absent from others. Dr Voolstra’s initial studies lead him to believe just a few genes will indeed turn out to be responsible. And although some will be geographically specific, he expects others will be found all over the world.

Further evidence points in that direction, too. In 2020 Phillip Cleves of Stanford University published work which showed that knocking out one particular gene in a species called Acropora millepora significantly reduces its ability to withstand heat. If resilience genes like these could be catalogued, and their presence identified in the field, that would allow researchers to identify resilient corals much more quickly than cbass can. This might be done using either some easily spotted biochemical consequence of their presence (a so-called biomarker), or one of the new generation of handheld gene-sequencing devices now coming onto the market.

Even if the full genetic complexity of heat resistance can be elucidated, though, other mysteries will remain. Certain corals are able to survive heat that kills their closest cousins as well as their unrelated neighbours. This has led to speculation that heat-resistance can also be conferred on corals by symbiotic organisms—either particular types of their companion algae, or perhaps the bacteria that collectively constitute their “microbiome”.

It would make a lot of sense from both the coral and the algal point of view for corals’ algal symbionts to evolve more robust mechanisms of photosynthesis, which do not misbehave at high temperatures. Presumably, given time and continued global warming, that would happen naturally. But it might be possible to give the process a helping hand. Indeed, in a paper published in 2020, a group led by Madeleine van Oppen of Melbourne University showed it was possible to make a palpable difference to algal production of reactive oxygen-rich compounds with just four years of selective breeding for heat tolerance.

Even if the algae cannot be pressed into service in this way, though, other microscopic organisms living within a coral might be. Microbiomes—the collectives of bacteria, fungi and viruses that cohabit with most animals, especially in their guts—are now taken seriously as physiological influencers. The human microbiome has been connected, with various degrees of plausibility, to conditions ranging from obesity to Alzheimer’s disease, and gut microbes are essential to the digestive processes of animals as diverse as cattle and termites. There is no reason for corals to be exempt from their influence.

Raquel Peixoto of the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia is investigating the matter in collaboration with Dr Voolstra. In preliminary experiments, she and her team have isolated several microbes shared by resilient corals and then inoculated them into a few dozen unresilient varieties that lack them. The survival rate of the inoculated corals, when exposed to a temperature rise of 4°C, was 40% higher than that of the uninoculated ones.

Whatever cocktail of genetics and germs is needed to produce resilience, each of these factors suggests its own next steps. If genetics is the key, then corals with the relevant genes could be given priority by conservationists, transplanted to new sites, or else induced to breed more productively, perhaps by crossing different heat-resistant strains. If the microbiome is responsible, then probiotic injections could be developed. This would be exciting. Breeding for heat resilience would take generations. Probiotic injections could transform the prospects of a coral head doomed in the here and now. Some experiments even suggest that individual corals could be “hardened up” to adapt to warmer climates within their own lifetimes—and might then pass that toughness to offspring via a process called epigenetic inheritance, which allows certain acquired characteristics to be handed down for a generation or two via mechanisms that control gene expression.

One last possibility is genetic tinkering using crisprCas9 dna editing or a similar technique to insert or modify genes for heat resilience. This is an approach that Dr Cleves is exploring, though he has no intention as yet of taking his experiments outside a laboratory. The prospect of conducting them on a reef remains controversial, since it would mean letting genetically modified organisms loose in the wild. But as the planet continues to heat up, he believes there may come a point where conservationists have no alternative. Besides, it might be quicker than trying to achieve similar results by crossbreeding.

Know your enemy

The immediate priority, however, is to develop a better understanding of what is out there. This means doing several things. These include creating standard heat-resistance tests, so that species from different sites can be compared; investigating resistant corals to see which biomarkers they share; interbreeding resistant corals to find any undesirable characteristics that are inherited along with thermal resilience; and plumbing the transformative potential of probiotics.

Further challenges await those seeking to turn such observations to practical effect. The first is scale. The Great Barrier Reef, admittedly the largest target, is the size of Italy. By contrast, a restoration project a few hectares in size would be regarded as ambitious at the moment, so the first targets are likely to be reefs of high value as tourist attractions or natural sea defences.

In the longer term, automated disseminators of souped-up coral larvae or resilience-encouraging probiotic bacteria could help. So might identifying reefs that, by virtue of local currents, play an outsize role in propagating larvae to other sites— for these could be the most useful places to start. For Dr Cohen, recruiting these natural nodes will be crucial to engineering change over sufficiently large areas. “We have to let nature do its thing,” she says, “because only nature can do it on the scale that’s necessary.”

https://blendle.com/i/the-economist/reef-knots/bnl-economist-20220603-f8331f7d173

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

The green agenda’s role in global inflation

AS inflation rises and the prospects for our return to normality following the pandemic fade ever more into the distant future, criticism is rightly focusing on financial institutions and regulators. They claim that printing money, which has inevitably caused prices to rise, was necessary to mitigate the economic chaos of lockdowns. But now they appear to be behind a third act of immense self-harm to help to steer the world to inflation and deliberately prevent economic recovery. The rise in energy prices the world has seen were not the result of an unforeseeable supply crisis, but engineered by those charged with managing the economy.

In a recent interview, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey admitted to Sky News his discomfort at the UK rate of inflation heading towards 10 per cent. ‘We are being struck by historically large shocks,’ explained Bailey, removing himself and his organisation from the spotlight. ‘Who of us thought there would be a war in Europe of the sort that we’re seeing?’ he asked rhetorically.

As it happens, many people have been predicting such a conflict. Analysts, be they critics of Nato or Moscow, have long and for different reasons warned that Ukraine risks becoming the point of renewed east-west tension, and many Ukrainians themselves have spoken about the grim inevitability of war, at least since 2014. But this article is about energy and climate policy, not war. I raise the issue here because, like me, you might have expected the Governor of the Bank of England to have kept a watching brief on geopolitics.

We would be wrong, then. It turns out that the chief regulator of the UK economy (the sixth largest in the world) and his predecessor were far more concerned with the putative risks from climate change than with developments in geopolitics. The Bank of England’s webpages could have been written by an XR activist. ‘Climate change creates financial risks and economic consequences,’ it claims. ‘These risks and consequences matter for our mission to maintain monetary and financial stability.’ Endless volumes of reports and links to pages after pages make the case, citing equally endless scientific reports that I have always considered to be suspect.

Put simply, I do not believe that society’s sensitivity to climate is in any way equivalent to climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide. The planet may well be slightly warmer, but there exists very little evidence that this is creating economic risks. On the contrary, people everywhere are becoming much wealthier. (Or were, before the pandemic.) I shall spare the word count here, but I have written about it at length in many other places if you remain unconvinced. Suffice it to say that it is logically impossible for ‘risks’ to be growing as the BoE claim while an economy is growing, which it was, even in the world’s most seemingly climate-ravaged places.

But green ideology is a fetter on public institutions’ grasp of reality. And so we should look to the origins of green ideology to try to understand what is behind the BoE’s climate activism.

It is a common misconception that the climate agenda is driven by science. But it is a matter of historical fact that green ideology sprang from the very top of global society. In the 1960s, it was the Club of Rome, a think tank formed by wealthy industrialists and their pet academics that turned their fears about overpopulation and resource-depletion into a computer simulation that forecast civilisation’s imminent collapse. And so it is today with climate change, every earlier environmental scare story issued by that simulation now having been debunked by reality.

The heart of the contemporary green ‘movement’ is known by its ugly moniker, the ‘green blob’. The entirety of it, including those parts of it that dwell on streets, owes its existence completely to the grants given by about a dozen or so billionaires’ philanthropic foundations to organisations of various kinds. From Extinction Rebellion to academic research departments, none of it would exist but for the vast torrents of cash from the likes of Jeremy Grantham, Sir Christopher Hohn and Michael Bloomberg. And it is from here that the notion that ‘climate change creates financial risks and economic consequences’ springs from, and the belief that ‘financial stability’ is functionally dependent on ‘stable weather’ is forced into the machinery of the state.

Bailey’s predecessor at the Bank of England (2013-2020), Mark Carney, previously Governor of the Bank of Canada (2008-2013), had been so impressed by multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg’s selfless philanthropy (giving away a total of $11 billion of his $82 billion fortune, significantly to green causes), he fashioned a role for the tycoon in policymaking. As Governor of both BoE and BoC, Carney was also chair of the little-known intergovernmental agency, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), where he oversaw its greening, bringing the notion of financial stability being predicated on ‘stable weather’ to financial institutions the world over. Green ideology is an infectious rot. Under the FSB, a Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was established, and an array of corporate and financial bigwigs appointed to steer it, including Bloomberg as its chair.

Put simply, TCFD aimed to support the ‘E’ in ‘ESG’ with a system of ‘recommendations’ for voluntary disclosures that companies should make to investors, much as companies are required to make statutory disclosures about the state of their operations. ESG, short for Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance, is the fashionable green-woke successor to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), driving shareholders to change boardroom and culture using metrics that score companies’ commitments progressive values. TCFD’s recommendations build on the notion that, since financial stability is predicated on climatic stability, companies risk profiles are alsodependent on weather. The logic here being that if a company does not have a business plan that is compatible with a changing climate, and moreover, compatible with a changing regulatory environment, investors deserve to be made aware of these risks.

This was good business. Ethical business, even. And other green billionaire philanthropists were eager to give their money away to this good cause, too. British hedge fund manager, Sir Christopher Hohn, used much of the $800million pushed through his philanthropic outfit, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), to support organisations that campaign and lobby for these voluntary disclosures. CIFF founded the ‘Say on Climate’ campaign, which aimed to mobilise investors to press the companies in which they had an interest to adopt ‘climate transition action plans’, building on Hohn’s trademark shareholder activism. Between 2014 and 2020, CIFF made grants of over $23million to the Carbon Disclosure Project, and backed other shareholder and financial sector campaigning organisations partnered with the ‘We Mean Business Coalition’.

But as sure as push comes to shove, voluntary becomes compulsory. At the COP26 meeting in Glasgow last year, Mark Carney stood in front of a screen that declared the intention to make TCFD disclosures mandatory, and for policy frameworks to ‘wind down stranded assets’ – the green movement’s term for fossil fuel investments that will become obsolete when climate policy prohibits them. He was followed by Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who declared that investment funds with assets under management worth $130trillion were aligned to the UK’s new policies.

Sunak was an employee of Hohn’s investment fund, TCI, between 2006 and 2009. And as an alumnus of such a notable activist outfit as TCI, and as Chancellor, it is inconceivable that he was unaware of the effects on the economy that ESG was already having on the economy by last autumn. ESG had driven investors away from stock in companies that make useful stuff, such as coal, oil and gas, towards high-tech, social media and companies that produce mere vapour, such as Netflix. As Bloomberg reported at the time, in the era of ESG investing, capital investment in fossil fuels had halved since the Paris Agreement, and the cost of capital to fossil fuel companies had doubled.

Amid other factors, this capital strangulation of the energy sector was the direct effect of ESG investing, green campaigning organisations, and governments and central banks actively working together to destroy the fossil fuel sector without making the policy explicit. This is indubitably the main factor behind the energy supply crisis that seemed to come out of nowhere last year to add to inflation woes by pushing energy prices up.

A few days ago, Bailey told MPs that ‘there isn’t a lot we can do’ to stop inflation rising. But there was a lot that the BoE could have done to stop it happening, but failed to do, and instead helped in no small way to engineer this global crisis. In late 2020, the BoE published an Interim Report and Roadmap for implementing the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, which boasted of the BoE’s and UK government’s leading roles in creating ESG policy, and which ‘advocates a move towards mandatory TCFD-aligned disclosures across non-financial and financial sectors of the UK economy’.

Here’s a clue, Andrew, if you’re reading, about how you might start to address the problem of rising prices. Remove from the Bank of England all traces of environmental ideology and sever all links with the green billionaires who have pushed the notion that climate change is a ‘risk’ to the economy. It isn’t. The much greater risk than weather to the economic wellbeing of millions of British people – and billions of people throughout the world in poorer economies – is green ideology. While the likes of Hohn and Bloomberg have made billions of dollars through creating an ESG bubble via their undemocratic and undue influence in public institutions, billions of people are suffering from the effects of starving the energy sector of investment, pushing up the price of energy, transport, and food.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-green-agendas-role-in-global-inflation/

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

Biden invokes Defense Production Act to implement the Green New Deal

Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement blasting President Joe Biden for invoking the Defense Production Act to implement the Green New Deal’s plan to retrofit every building in America with solar panels, heat pumps, transformers and new building insulation:

“President Biden’s executive orders invoking the National Defense Production Act to produce solar panels, insulation and heat pumps are little more than an attempt to implement the Green New Deal’s plan to retrofit every building in America without any Congressional authorization. Fortunately, Congressional Republicans this spring blocked Biden’s attempt to get a blank check from Congress in the Ukraine war supplemental to reprogram Defense Department dollars to the Defense Production Act Fund and another bill that would have explicitly granted $100 billion for purpose, both of which would have created ready slush funds for Biden to implement the Green New Deal.

“One thing is abundantly clear, there is no national emergency related to any shortage of heat pumps, insulation or solar panels, and thus this is an inappropriate exercise of the Defense Production Act’s powers. Congress must remain vigilant to ensure that this broad grant of authority to the President over our nation’s economic system is not abused to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to implement the Green New Deal.”

https://getliberty.org/2022/06/biden-invokes-defense-production-act-to-implement-the-green-new-deal/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=3d5be163-9d23-4305-83ce-d9c90f5385b6

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

Australia: Greens fury as Labor Party won’t rule out more coal to deal with energy crisis

THE energy and gas crisis has put the days-old Albanese Government under pressure after it did not rule out increasing coal-fired power output to deal with shortages, sparking a fiery response from the Greens fresh off record-breaking election wins.

There was large swing to the Greens in Brisbane which saw the party pick up three seats, with climate change a big issue in the areas.

New Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he was not ruling any options “in or out” as the government seeks to deal with a “very serious” gas shortfall driving up wholesale power prices.

A “perfect storm” of coal-fired power outages, flooded coal mines and the war in Ukraine impacting gas supply has caused prices to soar, leaving the east coast states at risk of a supply shortage in the coming days.

Last month more than 30 per cent of the coal power capacity in the National Electricity Market was estimated to be offline.

Origin Energy boss Frank Calabria has called for government and industry to work together to increase coal power in the short term.

Asked about the comments, Mr Bowen said the Federal Government’s ability to up output might be “limited” compared to the private sector or states. “If there is advice to me about sensible and measure actions that can be taken, I will take them,” he said.

Mr Bowen confirmed he had spoken with Mr Calabria, and would convene an emergency meeting with all state and territory energy ministers early next week to discuss the crisis. He is also in talks with heavy industry and regulators to work on options to ease the extreme pressure on the Australian market.

Incoming Greens Griffith MP Max Chandler-Mather said Labor should not be considering ramping up coal or opening up more gas to deal with the issues.

“Fire chiefs and climate scientists are begging Labor to take urgent climate action – but instead, they’re doing the complete opposite by backing massive new gas projects,” Mr Chandler-Mather said.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/greens-fury-as-labor-wont-rule-out-more-coal-to-deal-with-energy-crisis/news-story/7fc671419057b5da1aef333c3f191fd3

The cheap, green, low-tech solution for the world’s megacities

Like most "easy" solutions, particularly Green ones, this idea has hairs on it. Making China of 1991 the model is in fact rather hilarious. To state the obvious: Commuting via bicycle (as distinct from recreational riding) is only for the young and fit -- a minority in any population. Electrically assisted bikes could expand the feasible age-range up a bit but even they will impose a time penalty: Most commutes will be time-limited. They will be slow and will be limited to ones short enough to take only an acceptable time in traffic. And I have't even mentioned the weather yet.

Yes. It is true that traffic jams are a problem almost everywhere but modern governments can and do provide enough infrastructure to keep jams to peak hours -- as they have done in my city of Brisbane, where roadworks never cease, with a particular emphasis on tunnels. And the Brisbane conurbation is home to around 2 million people. Yes. I know about Boston's "big dig" but Brisbane's tunnelers have had nothing like the problems there. Most tunnels have in fact have been completed on time. And you can fly along in them at significant speed. And a new tunnel was provisionally opened just a few days ago

And a major solution to traffic jams is already in place in most Western cities -- decentralization. There are large shopping and business centres well outside the CBD. A modern city is in fact a collection of mini-cities, with little need for most people to travel into the central area. And that is a continuing trend.

And there is a big solution that lies within the power of the individual: Move to a smaller city. I have family who live in Invercargill in New Zealand, where the rush hour lasts 10 minutes. Yet with few exceptions they have there all the facilities they would get in a big city. And my home state of Queensland has a long string of pleasant regional cities from Cairns to Gladstone. I myself once contemplated moving to Mackay. Some of the cities concerned are in fact significant tourist destinations so are pretty pleasant. The big limitation of small cities is of course the lack of some specialized jobs but in the new era of working from home that looks set to become less of a problem

In a stunning photograph from Shanghai in 1991, clusters of cycling commuters stream across a bridge. The only motorised vehicles to be seen are two buses. That was China in the 1990s: a “Bicycle Kingdom” where 670 million people owned pushbikes. Chinese rulers were then still following the lead of Deng Xiaoping, who defined prosperity as a “Flying Pigeon bicycle in every household”.

Today China is the kingdom of eight-lane highways. Most lower- and middle-income megacities around the world have ditched the bike. But they now need to reclaim it. Modern “megacities” (defined as places with at least 10 million inhabitants) are the biggest human settlements in history, and growing every day.

The world had ten megacities in 1990, 33 in 2018 and will have 43 by 2030, says the United Nations. Over a third of their population growth will be in India, China and Nigeria. More cars will mean more traffic jams and more damage to people, the planet and city life. Happily, it’s perfectly feasible for these places to become bicycle kingdoms again.

For now, poorer megacities tend to be designed for rich people who can afford cars — which in India means one household in 12. Often mayors can find money for highways, but not for bike lanes or even pavements. In lower-income countries, bikes tend to be stigmatised as poor people’s vehicles, whereas in rich cities they get stigmatised as hipster toys. Many people in poorer megacities dream of living in Los Angeles and owning an SUV. For now, though, they can spend hours a day stuck in motionless status symbols that sometimes cost a third of their income, especially with soaring petrol prices.

In lower-income countries, bikes tend to be stigmatised as poor people’s vehicles. In rich cities they get stigmatised as hipster toys

The more cars, the less mobility. In Istanbul, the world’s most congested city according to satnav provider TomTom, the average person lost 142 hours a year in traffic, while Moscow, Bogot�, Mumbai and Delhi all topped 100 hours. The Mombasa-Nairobi highway in Kenya once hosted a three-day traffic jam.

Then there are the carbon emissions, the 1.3 million people killed each year in traffic accidents and the estimated 4.2 million who die prematurely from outdoor air pollution, most of them in poor countries. For comparison, the combined global annual death toll from homicides and armed conflicts is about half a million. Add on the terrifying numbers of people in car-bound cities who will die early because they hardly get any exercise: an estimated 77 million Indians are diabetics, and most don’t know it. Cars are serial killers.

Poorer megacities seeking to push out cars can seldom afford metro trains. London’s Crossrail, first mooted in 1974 and approved in 1990, a mere bolt-on to the existing Tube, has finally opened at a cost of £19bn. Paris is splashing out even more on its expanded metro. It would be cheaper to give every commuter a free electric bicycle.

Many poor cities, inspired by the bike boom in high-status western capitals, have recently drawn up cycling plans. But they are too scared of drivers to implement them, says Gil Pe�alosa, an urbanist who helped bring bikes to Bogot�. Still, Nairobi, Jakarta, Addis Ababa and Beijing are among those cities that are now expanding cycle paths. The electric bicycle is a game-changer, much more significant than the overhyped, expensive and insufficiently green e-car: global sales of e-bikes are projected to reach 40 million next year, compared to 9 million for electric vehicles. Globally, most trips are less than 10 kilometres, which e-bikes can cover within half an hour, says the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.

Many megacities are early enough in their development to avoid the wrong turn towards cars that European cities made after the war. Mayors should be building charging infrastructure for e-bikes, not more arterial roads.

In some cities, the heat discourages cycling, though the problem can be overstated: steamy Dhaka has long been the world’s rickshaw capital, most Indian households still own bikes, and Shanghai’s sweltering summers didn’t deter cyclists in 1991. Possible heatproof solutions could be to organise carpools, extra buses, or earlier working times in summer.

In crime-ridden cities such as Johannesburg, some people don’t dare cycle for fear of cycle-jackings. But many elsewhere yearn to get on their bikes. Just under half of Chinese people say they would like to use bikes for their daily commute, while another 37 per cent want to go by moped or electric scooter, according to a survey by McKinsey. The next step — as in high-income cities — is to replace delivery trucks with cargo bikes.

How often does a knot of problems have one cheap, green, healthy, low-tech solution? Smart cities will actually implement it.

https://www.ft.com/content/088f544d-2f7e-404a-9a19-43f1fda24ffa

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

Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet

Inflation welcome? This puffed up fool fails to mention that inflation destroys people's savings. Failing to look at the big picture is typical Greenie thinking

The foods that go into Americans’ bag lunches and onto dinner plates cost 10.8 percent more today than they did this time last year. But inflation has not struck every section of the grocery store at the same rate: The price of animal products is surging.

Meat, poultry, fish and eggs now cost 14.3 percent more than they did a year ago. For a country that consumes about 274 pounds of meat per person per year, that has been a particularly bruising economic reality. If the current rate of food inflation holds and Americans don’t change their meat consumption habits, they will spend roughly $20 billion more on meat, poultry, fish and eggs over the next year than they did in 2020.

Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat. While hunger and food insecurity are a very real problem in the United States and globally, middle- and upper-class Americans still have more choices at the grocery store than perhaps any food shoppers in history. Climate change has motivated some to eat less resource-intensive meat and more vegetables, grains and legumes, but this movement has not reached the scale necessary to bring needed change — yet.

The price of fruits and vegetables has increased by 7.8 percent over the last year, roughly half that of meat and poultry and a bit behind dairy, which has increased by 9.1 percent. A 2021 study in Nature found that animal products produce greenhouse gases at twice the rate of foods from plants. We should be paying attention to every ton of carbon dioxide that goes into the atmosphere — the same way shoppers are watching the cost of every addition to their grocery carts.

What we eat is often cast in moral terms, whether that is diet culture erroneously claiming that willpower is the primary factor that influences body size or vegetarians arguing that eating animals is murder. Americans’ actual diets, though, tend to be dictated by financial rather than ethical considerations. One recent survey of 3,500 consumers found that while environmental concerns and animal rights would not persuade many shoppers to purchase meat substitutes more often, lower prices could.

Inflation resulting from the cost of fuel and feed, coupled with supply chain slowdowns, may make meat substitutes more affordable relative to traditional, factory-farmed meats. Locally raised, more sustainably farmed meat could also come closer to price parity with factory-farmed protein. While fresh fruits and vegetables have long been more expensive, calorie for calorie, compared with meat, the prices of peaches, kale and cucumbers are rising more slowly than those of chicken breasts and hanger steaks. Beans, legumes and grains like rice and farro are comparatively cheap to start with, are highly nutritious and are seeing fewer inflationary effects than meat (although wheat prices are rising astronomically).

But poorer people and those in “food deserts” may not have reliable access to fruit, vegetables and other fresh foods and so may not be able to change their diets as readily as those with greater access to fresh food options. That means the responsibility for change falls upon those with the widest set of choices.

Historically, cost has been a powerful force that has changed Americans’ diets. Yes, people in most cultures tend to eat more meat as they grow richer. But tighter budgets have also driven reductions in meat consumption. Wartime cutbacks in the early 20th century and the inflation of the 1970s amounted to money-conscious nudges from government officials and cookbook authors that pushed diets toward plant-based eating. In 2022, it could happen again.

Until the 1970s, the number of American vegetarians was negligible. With the spread of new attitudes toward food, that figure rose to 6 percent by 1999 but then stayed there, with a 2018 Gallup survey finding that 5 percent of American adults were vegetarian. With the rise of feel-good labels like “organic” and “natural” and farmers’ markets that promise locally grown, humanely raised meat — as well as a new, more sophisticated generation of meat substitutes — the message now is less about abstaining entirely than reducing our overall intake.

There is an inherent conflict in asking people to change their most personal habits because of climate change when government policy puts few restraints on polluting industries like oil, gas, coal and automobiles. Still, the answer isn’t either-or; it’s both-and. Rising prices for all kinds of consumer goods are exerting pressure on Americans, but our food spending can be modified more easily than what we pay at the gas pump. We do not have to become, overnight, a nation of vegetarians and vegans, but we could adjust what we eat to save both our pocketbooks and our planet.

While poor and food-insecure households are already stretching their grocery budgets as far as they will go, shoppers with more choices have the relative luxury to see inflation as the nudge they need to go meatless at lunch or twice a week — or to simply break out of the slab-of-meat-with-two-sides mold that has composed the American plate for decades.

The inflation of the period between the Gilded Age and World War I gave Americans a taste for peanut butter, pasta and stews and casseroles graced with but not dependent on meat. The 1970s brought us brown rice, granola, exciting vegetables like eggplant and zucchini, and every conceivable way to prepare a lentil. Freed from having meat in every meal and with a world of recipes at our fingertips, what will the delicious culinary legacy of this inflationary period be?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/opinion/inflation-vegetarian-vegan.html

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

Climate change could see clouds disappear from the earth forever -- or not

They think of everything. Global warming causes more extreme precipitation which apparently will occur without clouds.

Scientists have issued one of their starkest warnings yet over climate change, suggesting that clouds could be wiped away from our skies, potentially forever.

Using global models based on computer algorithms, the researchers appeared to be concluding that the earth may shortly become bereft of clouds, although they also appeared to suggest that they could also go the other way and become thicker and more reflective. Pinpointing which is the likelier scenario has been difficult to predict, until now.

Using models to make forecasts have been difficult to produce in the past, but this latest research utilising the Frontera super-computer is establishing a way of coming up with far more accurate indications.

Michael Pritchard, professor of Earth System Science at UC Irvine, told The Express : "Low clouds could dry up and shrink like the ice sheets – or they could thicken and become more reflective. If you ask two different climate models what the future will be like when we add a lot more CO2, you get two very different answers – and the key reason for this is the way clouds are included in climate models."

He said the world's most advanced global climate models struggled to approach what he termed "four-kilometre global resolution" so far. To get more accurate forecasts, a resolution of at least 100 metres is needed to capture the fine-scale turbulent eddies that form shallow cloud systems.

While this could take decades, Prof Pritchard's team is developing a model broken into two parts – a coarse, low-resolution model and another consisting of many small patches with 100 to 200-metre resolutions. Run together, they exchange data every half hour. This can then capture the processes of cloud formation without producing unwanted side-effects.

Prof Pritchard told The Express: "The model does an end-run around the hardest problem – whole planet modelling. It has thousands of little micromodels that capture things like realistic shallow cloud formation that only emerge in very high resolution."

The results were reported in the Journal of Advances in Modelling Earth Systems.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/climate-change-could-see-clouds-24135314

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

Australia: New minister in Leftist government says coal may remain King for decades under Labor’s watch

Resources Minister Madeleine King has vowed never to put a limit on how much coal Australia will export, saying it is possible Australia could be sending the resource to Asian trading partners past 2050.

The West Australian cabinet minister said the Albanese government would not negotiate with the Greens over the minor party’s push to end coal and gas development, saying every Labor MP understood the importance of the industry.

Ms King said she was not concerned her role of championing the coal and gas sectors had become more difficult internally, despite the growing threat to inner city seats from the Greens and an election result which showed climate change action had become a more pressing concern for voters.

“Not at all because the party acknowledges the role of these industries,” Ms King told The Weekend Australian.

“There is not a (Labor) member that doesn’t understand that it is the resources industry that is the backbone of the economy.

“It is always a contested place, and I get that, but the main thing is we are committed to net-zero emissions by 2050, most of the country is, the community is, the mining and resources industry certainly is.”

With the Coalition accusing Labor of pretending to back the coal sector before the election to prevent losing seats in the NSW Hunter Valley, Ms King used her first week in as a minister to declare her support for the industry would never waver.

“Absolutely, 100 per cent, I support the coal industry,” she said.

“NSW was built on coalmining. It is a deep tradition and it is really good, high quality coal compared to coal from other countries. So that is important to recognise.

“It supports lots of jobs and lots of communities. That is really important for people to acknowledge. But the industry itself knows there are challenges around net-zero emissions needs and they are seeking to address that themselves.”

Ms King took over the resources portfolio last year from former Hunter MP Joel Fitzgibbon, who used the portfolio to wage a high-profile campaign to improve the party’s standing among blue-collar workers.

Former Labor Minister Stephen Conroy says the Labor Party is giving workers in the coal industry a “very positive… sign” by reaffirming the importance of coal. Labor has recently voiced support for the coal industry, with resources spokeswoman Madeleine King announcing the party will not stand in the More
She maintained Mr Fitzgibbon’s supportive rhetoric of the sector but was less antagonistic towards the party’s environmentalists who were pushing for ambitious climate change goals.

In April last year, Ms King controversially predicted Australia would export thermal coal past 2050. “I think we go beyond the middle of the century, I really do,” Ms King said told The Australian last year.

Since then, the election of US President Joe Biden has turbocharged global climate change action, with most of the developed world dramatically increasing emissions reduction targets.

While not as bullish, Ms King said she believed it was still possible Australia would be exporting the resource beyond 2050. “It is a difficult question because it is international markets that change. It will be international markets that decide these things, in boardrooms elsewhere, as to what they will purchase,” she said.

“I do think it is possible and I actually wouldn’t want to put any kind of timeline on how long we export coal for.”

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/new-minister-says-coal-may-remain-king-for-decades-under-labors-watch/news-story/43bce3b3428c1d14aee09d6904a4ae25

Sunday, June 05, 2022

World Economic Forum Urges People To Eat Seaweed, Algae, Cacti To Save The Planet

World Economic Forum technocrats are urging people to ditch meat and other foods deemed to be harmful to the planet and instead consume “climate beneficial foods” such as seaweed, algae and cacti. No word on whether that was on the menu at Davos.

The WEF made the call as it wrapped up the 2022 meeting of global elitists in Switzerland.

A video summary was posted to Twitter in which the WEF promoted alternatives to a food system it claimed is responsible for two thirds of global carbon dioxide emissions.

A starter list published by the organization triumphs algae as being “an ideal replacement for meat” because it has a “carbon-negative profile” and is high in “essential fatty acids and high vitamin and antioxidants content.”

The guide also highlights cacti as containing “high amounts of vitamins C and E, carotenoids, fibre and amino acids,” noting that it is already commonly eaten in Mexico.

“This food crisis is real, and we must find solutions,” World Trade Organization Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said.

Back in December 2020, the World Economic Forum published two articles on its website which explored how people could be conditioned to get used to the idea of eating weeds, bugs and drinking sewage water in order to reduce CO2 emissions.

Earlier this year, Vanderbilt University Professor Amanda Little argued that everyone in the world needs to start dining on insects and that the EU’s approval of them conferred a form of “dignity” to their consumption.

In February, billionaire-owned news outlet Bloomberg said Americans should cope with soaring inflation by eating lentils instead of meat.

A group of environmental economists in Germany also demanded that huge taxes be imposed on meat products to fight climate change, with calls for beef to be 56 per cent more expensive.

“There is no record of exactly what was served to the 2,500 invited delegates dining at the elite gathering in Davos and whether or not the WEF’s own dietary instructions were followed by participants,” writes Simon Kent.

If the Cop26 climate change summit in Scotland last year was any indication, algae and cacti weren’t on the menu.

Attendees there enjoyed dishes full of animal-based ingredients that were at least double the ‘carbon footprint’ of the average UK meal.

So the global elites want us to eat things that would probably make us all ill, while they continue to indulge their lavish meat-filled banquets.

https://principia-scientific.com/world-economic-forum-urges-people-to-eat-seaweed-algae-cacti-to-save-the-planet/

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

Wrong, LiveScience, Global Weather Not Worsening

Near the top of the search results on Google news for the term “climate change” is a story from LiveScience claiming that climate change is causing worsening weather events globally, for example, flooding and drought, hurricanes, and cold snaps. These claims are false. Data show there is no measurable worsening trend for any of these weather conditions globally.

An article on LiveScience by writer Patrick Pester, titled “Is climate change making the weather worse?” quotes retired historian and physicist Spencer Weart, claiming human caused climate change is making weather worse.

Pester writes:

Experimental data and climate models suggest this warming will affect weather in a variety of ways, making it hotter and colder, more extreme, more chaotic and in a word, “worse.” For example, as the world gets warmer, more water evaporates from the surface of dry areas and increases precipitation in wet areas, according to Weart. In other words, dry areas get drier and wet areas get wetter. More moisture in the atmosphere in a warming planet can also lead to heavier snowfall during the winter.

Weart’s claims demonstrate either that he is not, in fact, familiar with actual weather-related data, or he more concerned about generating political action to fight climate change rather than following the evidence and describing current weather data factually. Real world measurements of droughts, floods, and snowfall refute the claims made by Weart in the LiveScience article.

Concerning floods, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits that there is only “low confidence” that there is any change in the flooding resulting from severe rainfall worldwide, even as they say precipitation has increased over mid-latitudes. The IPCC also reports “low confidence” about any trends in drought globally, as explained in Climate at a Glance: Drought.

Pester notes these extreme weather forecasts are based climate models and “experimental data.” Why not use actual data, one might ask? Especially since, as pointed out on Climate Realism on multiple occasions, such as here, here, and here, the model simulations used by scientists run way too hot, unrealistically so. Over time, these models have become less accurate, not more, as they have become larger and more complex. Recent publications in Nature identify the problem with these models, and chastise scientists who seem to prefer using the most extreme of the models in order to paint a more alarming picture.

Discussing hurricanes, Pester writes:

“Weart pointed to severe North Atlantic hurricanes in the Caribbean and U.S. in recent years, as well as hurricanes, or tropical cyclones, around the world as examples of worsening weather. ‘There’s very little question that everywhere the hurricanes are getting worse,’ he [Weart] said.”

This is simply false. As discussed in Climate Realism posts like “New Data: Increasing Hurricane Frequency Due to Better Observation, Not Climate Change,” there is no evidence hurricanes are becoming more frequent. A fact confirmed in the IPCC’s most recent Sixth Assessment report. Science indicates, any increase in the number of reported hurricanes is due to better detection and tracking of hurricanes at sea, not an actual increase in the number of hurricanes forming. Nor, as reported in repeated Climate Realism posts show, for instance, posts here, here, and here, does data support the assertion that the hurricanes that have formed during the decades of recent warming are becoming more powerful. There is no detectable trend in major, Category 3 and above, landfalling hurricanes, (See figure below). Indeed, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes, the United States recently went more than a decade—2005 through 2017—without a major hurricane making landfall. That is the longest such period in recorded history.

LiveScience also uncritically repeats Weart’s unverified claim that “global warming could be causing colder snaps,” in reference to recent polar vortex weather events in North America. Data presented in Climate at a Glance: Cold Spells, show that there has been no increase in the frequency or severity of cold snaps. The formation of large polar vortexes during recent winters, is not historically unique and was due to a weakened jet stream. Such events have been known to science and observed for more than a hundred years.

Data verification is critical improving our knowledge of the world and to scientific advances. If Patrick Pester and LiveScience were interested in sound science or good honest journalism, the article would have presented some actual data and the points of view of scientists who disagreed with Weart’s analysis. Instead, LiveScience uncritically published demonstrably false claims made by a single scientist, based on faulty attribution modelling. That’s bad science compounded by bad journalism

https://climaterealism.com/2022/06/wrong-livescience-global-weather-not-worsening/

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

Organic farming is turning a food crisis into a catastrophe

Long simply a fashionable trend for the world’s 1 per cent, environmental activists have increasingly peddled the beguiling idea that organic farming can solve hunger.

The EU is pushing for a tripling of organic farming on the continent by 2030, while a majority of Germans actually think organic farming can help feed the world.

However, research conclusively shows that organic farming produces much less food than conventional farming per hectare. Moreover, organic farming requires farmers to rotate soil out of production for pasture, fallow or cover crops, reducing its effectiveness. In total, organic approaches produce between a quarter and half less food than conventional, scientific-driven agriculture. This not only makes organic food more expensive, but it means that organic farmers would need much more land to feed the same number of people as today – possibly almost twice the area.

Given that agriculture currently uses 40 per cent of Earth’s ice-free land, switching to organics would mean destroying large swathes of nature for less effective production. The catastrophe unfolding in Sri Lanka provides a sobering lesson. The government last year enforced a full transition to organic farming, appointing organics gurus as agricultural advisers, including some who claimed dubious links between agricultural chemicals and health problems. Despite extravagant claims that organic methods could produce comparable yields to conventional farming, within months the policy produced nothing but misery, with some food prices quintupling.

Sri Lanka had been self-sufficient in rice production for decades, but tragically has now been forced to import $US450m worth of rice. Tea, the nation’s primary export crop and source of foreign exchange, was devastated, with economic losses estimated at $US425m.

Before the country spiralled downward toward brutal violence and political resignations, the government was forced to offer $US200m in compensation to farmers and come up with $US149m in subsidies.

Sri Lanka’s organic experiment failed fundamentally because of one simple fact: it does not have enough land to replace synthetic nitrogen fertiliser with animal manure. To shift to organics and keep production, it would need five to seven times more manure than its total manure today.

Synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, mostly made with natural gas, are a modern miracle, crucial for feeding the world. Largely thanks to this fertiliser, agricultural outputs were tripled in the past half-century, as the human population doubled.

Artificial fertiliser and modern farming inputs are the reason why the number of people working on farms has been slashed in every rich country, freeing people for other productive occupations.

In fact, one dirty secret of organic farming is that, in rich countries, the vast majority of existing organic crops depend on imported nitrogen laundered from animal manure, which ultimately comes from fossil fuel fertilisers used on conventional farms.

Without those inputs, if a country – or the world – were to go entirely organic, nitrogen scarcity quickly becomes disastrous, just like we saw in Sri Lanka.

That is why research shows going organic globally can only feed about half the current world population. Organic farming will lead to more expensive, scarcer food for fewer people, while gobbling up more nature.

To sustainably feed the world and withstand future global shocks, we need to produce food better and cheaper.

History shows that the best way to achieve that is by improving seeds, including by using genetic modification, along with expanding fertiliser, pesticides and irrigation. This will allow us to produce more food, curb prices, alleviate hunger, and save nature.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/organic-farming-is-turning-a-food-crisis-into-a-catastrophe/news-story/944625bd3168b212eddccadeaed82640

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

Vulnerable suffering at hands of climate catastrophists

It should be a source of national shame that in a first-world nation blessed with abundant natural resources we have so many unable to warm their home in winter.

The climate catastrophists who shriek the loudest about global warming being an existential crisis that threatens lives are rather blas� about a deadly crisis they’ve helped create.

They claim “people are dying” due to global warming when the truth is that cold weather kills in greater numbers than any warming.

And tragically, soaring energy costs will undoubtedly see more vulnerable people die with increasing numbers of Australians not adequately heating their homes in the coldest months.

It should be a source of national shame that in a first world nation blessed with abundant natural resources we have so many people failing to cool their homes in summer and warm them in winter.

As the winter chill takes hold, consider the plight of pensioners, low-income earners and even some middle income households where crippling energy costs see people opting to remain cold rather than risk bill shock by turning on the heater.

There are people who should be enjoying their golden years staying in bed until early afternoon, not because they fancy a sleep-in but because it is the warmest place in the house and it means they can delay turning on the heating.

Three years ago I wrote about research conducted by doctors at The Alfred and academics from Monash University showing people who had been indoors presenting to hospitals with hypothermic emergency. The 2019 paper published in Internal Medicine Journal revealed that in just two inner-city emergency departments, more than 200 patients presented with hypothermia, with 23 people dying, over a seven-year period to 2016.

About 80 per cent of the patients presenting with hypothermic emergency were found indoors and close to three quarters of all patients were pensioners. If that is not appalling enough, consider that those stats reflect what happened in just two emergency departments and only up to 2016.

As we know all too well, energy costs have increased and are about to skyrocket further due largely to self-inflicted harm caused by policies to reduce emission targets. Interestingly, the author of the aforementioned study is now the member for Higgins, Dr Michelle Ananda-Rajah. She said back in 2019: “We’re seeing patients who are clearly coming in profoundly hypothermic and being found indoors. Hypothermia is generally not something that happens suddenly ... when you get to a certain temperature, you’re vulnerable to sudden death.”

During the election campaign there was not much said about hypothermic patients but plenty about slashing emissions and ‘meaningful action on climate change.’

Never mind that such action, as we have seen in Europe and North America, invariably lead to greater unreliability and significantly higher costs.

National Seniors chief advocate Ian Henschke told the Herald Sun heating and cooling are important in keeping elderly people healthy but many pensioners do not properly heat or cool their homes due to soaring costs.

“We know during heatwaves they don’t put on airconditioning and in winter stay in bed to keep warm,” he said. “Australia has too much pension poverty. We’re wealthy a country that can do better. That’s why we want an independent tribunal to set the rate of the pension and rules changed to allow poor pensioners to work more without penalty. We hope the new government will fix this.”

Meanwhile, Mr Henschke urges all seniors to check their eligibility for discounts by using the National Seniors Concessions Calculator.

Around 6.5 per cent of deaths in Australia are attributed to cold weather while hot weather accounts for 0.5 per cent, according to Yuming Guo, head of Monash University’s Climate, Air Quality Research Unit and professor of Global Environmental Health and Biostatistics.

Sadly, the numbers of Australians whose health will deteriorate due to prolonged exposure to cold temperatures is set to increase in line with higher heating costs.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi-vulnerable-suffering-at-hands-of-climate-catastrophists/news-story/1f6e7d60ff14b3f37989a79ff294d011

Friday, June 03, 2022

Newt Gingrich blasts Pennsylvania Democrats' entry in 'green' energy initiative

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich slammed both President Biden and Democratic governors on 'Hannity' for compounding disasters and refusing to pivot like Clinton.

Democrats nationwide are showing their preference for party doctrine over the economic well-being of their constituents, led by President Biden's pursuit of a green agenda, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Wednesday.

Gingrich said Biden is unrecognizable compared to Democratic presidents like Bill Clinton, whom he said acknowledged initial policy failures and politically pivoted to the center in 1996.

"Every aspect of American life is being deteriorated right now," Gingrich told "The Ingraham Angle," pointing to a woman from his home state of Pennsylvania who personified the "compounding" crises of the Biden administration.

The woman, from Washington, Penn., in the commonwealth's industrial southwest, has regularly been going to "four or five" grocers in search of baby formula, but has run into spiking gas prices.

"She can't afford the gasoline to go to four or five stores," Gingrich explained. "So these become compounding disasters."

Gingrich, who grew up in Hummelstown, outside Hershey, said Democrats like Gov. Tom Wolf are further compounding the economic strife being felt in such states.

"[Wolf] just signed an executive order that will punish western Pennsylvania for producing natural gas," he said of the governor's unilateral entry into the RGGI pact. "This is at a time when the Marcellus Shale has 400-years' supply sitting right there in Pennsylvania."

"But the governor can't get out of it because his Left would rather punish Pennsylvanians in the name of their ideology," he said.

In response to that move, two Republicans — GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano and state Sen. Scott Hutchinson — introduced a bill to slash energy production regulations and withdraw Pennsylvania from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).

The senators nodded to rising energy costs, arguing in a statement that the state's bountiful natural gas and coal resources should render it "immune to energy cost volatility" in the absence of added regulations.

America's first successful oil well was drilled in Hutchinson's district in 1859.

Gingrich added that the Pennsylvania case will not be the last instance of Democrats doubling down on policies that will hurt their constituents in favor of adhering to party doctrine.

"I think you're going to see this across the board. I don't think they can change. And I think if they try to change their party, will have a civil war."

https://www.foxnews.com/media/newt-gingrich-blasts-pennsylvania-democrats-entry-green-energy-initiative

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

‘Unprecedented Level Of Federal Overreach’: 16 Governors Urge Biden To Rescind Costly Wall Street Climate Rules

A coalition of 16 Republican governors sent a letter Tuesday to President Joe Biden, urging him to rescind a proposal introducing a series of climate requirements for companies.

The recent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposal, which forces publicly-traded companies to share so-called climate change risks and greenhouse gas emissions, would harm businesses and investors by adding high compliance costs, the governors argued in the letter addressed to both Biden and SEC Chairman Gary Gensler. The climate disclosure rule, they added, would also represent an overstepping of the SEC’s authority.

“The unprecedented level of federal overreach makes your proposed rule an especially dangerous step,” the GOP governors led by Utah Gov. Spencer Cox wrote in the letter. “The SEC’s congressionally directed mission is to protect investors, facilitate capital formation, and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.” (RELATED: Democrats Look To Sustainable Investing Craze As Means For Pushing Climate Agenda)

“The proposed rule degrades and undermines that mission by injecting subjective political judgments on climate policy into corporate disclosures, in a manner calculated to harm the states that provide for America’s energy security,” the letter continued.

The climate rule, which the Democratic-majority SEC proposed on March 21, would introduce about a dozen new requirements related to climate change risk for companies to comply with. The SEC acknowledged that the proposal would have a relatively larger impact on small companies forced to analyze supposed risks to climate change.

The governors’ letter Tuesday was filed as a public comment in the federal register where individuals, interest groups and others have shared more than 1,300 comments on the proposal. On May 9, the SEC extended the public comment period to last until June 17.

Cox and the 15 other Republican governors argued that the rule is “especially foolish” since Americans continue to face increasing pump prices and electricity costs.

“Americans are struggling to pay their bills during the worst inflation in decades, and they expect their federal leaders to do everything possible to bring down prices, not place additional burdens on businesses and increase the uncertainty they face,” the letter concluded. “We strongly urge you to withdraw the proposed rule.”

Governors from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming signed the letter.

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/06/unprecedented-level-of-federal-overreach-16-governors-urge-biden-to-rescind-costly-wall-street-climate-rules/

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

Global freezing? Arctic ice levels reach 30-year HIGH

The World Economic Forum (WEF) recently convened its annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss the “climate crisis.” It was revealed there that arctic ice is currently at a 30-year high, according to data from the intergovernmental European Organization for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

Globalist groups like the WEF have been pushing for years to redistribute the wealth of nations as a “remedy” for alleged global warming and climate change. It turns out that the real problem might be global freezing. (Related: Remember back in 2017 when an arctic science expedition got caught in too much ice?)

One of the primary metrics used by climate fanatics to make their wild climate claims is arctic ice. We have been told for years that the polar ice caps are melting, which Al Gore infamously said would cause flooding due to sea level increases.

“In 2007, Al Gore began warning the world that scientists were predicting that by 2013, the Arctic would be ice-free during the summer,” writes Art Moore for WND about how wrong these fanatics ended up being with their climate hysteria.

Climate change skeptic Tony Heller remains an outspoken critic of all this wrongness by the climate cult. Last September, he wrote a piece about how the Arctic Ocean gained a record amount of sea ice for that time of year.

“Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased,” he tweeted, further noting that this would not get reported on by the likes of CNN, The New York Times, or BBC News.

Last summer, sea melt was the lowest it has been in 15 years while the expanse of the Antarctic Sea was well above average. All of this points to the fact that the planet is not warming; if anything, it is freezing – or better yet, it is just normal based on shifting climate cycles that have been occurring since the beginning of time.

Even so, the corporate-controlled media continues to fearmonger about the fictitious notion of global warming. The Times, for instance, published a story last fall claiming that climate change is “the greatest threat to global public health” that exists.

The solution, of course, is more government control over people, more taxes, and more tyranny. This, the “experts” claim,” will keep the planet at just the right temperatures.

The Biden regime is also on board with this agenda, as its Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an announcement about how it plans to treat climate change as a public health issue.

By doing this, the government has now granted itself the authority to invoke emergency powers just as it did with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), except this time the restrictions will include things like curbing private vehicle use and limiting the amount of animal products people consume.

Fossil fuels like gas and oil are also slated for elimination, only to be replaced with highly unstable and unreliable “green” technologies such as wind and solar.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-30-global-freezing-arctic-ice-levels-30-year-high.html

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

Prominent Australian conservative politician issues a dire warning to Australia NOT to ditch coal with the country in the grips of an energy crisis as Germany announces that it could switch on coal power plants once again

Barnaby Joyce has called for Australia to generate more coal-fired power to ease the energy crisis as power bills soar.

The former deputy prime minister said Australia should follow European nations including Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania and the Czech Republic which plan to burn more coal as a temporary measure while they reduce reliance on Russian gas.

Sanctions on major oil and gas exporter Russia over its invasion of Ukraine as well as soaring demand after Covid-19 lockdowns have seen global energy prices skyrocket.

Germany has drawn up a bill this week ordering coal power plants that were due to shut down to be maintained on standby in case they are needed at short notice.

Financial comparison group Finder is predicting Australian electricity prices could double in July, taking average monthly bills in NSW from about $120 to $240.

Mr Joyce, who is against Australia's net zero carbon emissions by 2050 target which his own government implemented, said one solution is to burn more coal and gas.

He blasted the Coalition for not building more fossil fuel plants or nuclear power stations which are banned in Australia.

'We've sort of gone off on this tangent that we don't need coal fired power, we don't need baseload power,' Mr Joyce told 2GB on Thursday morning.

'And of course that's like saying you don't need a roof, that you can live alright in your house if you just wear a coat and unfortunately these chickens are coming home to roost.'

Labor Treasurer Jim Chalmers takes the opposite view, insisting that a 'decade of inaction' on renewable energy under the Coalition government has left Australians paying more for their power.

'These are the costs and consequences of almost a decade of a former government which had 22 different energy policies, a range of different energy ministers, and didn't take the steps that we needed them to take,' he told reporters on Thursday.

Dr Chalmers said the Coalition had failed at 'improving transmission, getting cleaner and cheaper energy into the system, or injecting some certainty in the market so that we can get the investment that we need.'

The new Labor government wants 82 per cent of the nation's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030 and believes this will bring down power prices because hydro, solar and wind energy is cheaper.

Currently about 60 per cent of Australia's electricity comes from coal, 32 per cent from renewables and eight per cent from gas.

Mr Joyce, who was toppled as Nationals leader on Monday, said he wants to change public opinion to garner support for more coal and gas.

'What we have to do now is get the attitude change in the public that you want to get baseload power up and running,' he said.

'You want to get the coal fired power stations up and running. You have to seriously consider nuclear because the alternative is coming to you in the mail and it's called the power bill and it's going through the roof.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10876855/Barnaby-Joyce-issues-dire-warning-Australia-amid-power-crisis.html

Thursday, June 02, 2022

It was not global warming that started the New Mexico wildfires

Guess who did

Two blazes that grew into New Mexico's largest ever wildfire were both started by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the agency said on Friday, prompting the state's governor to demand the federal government take full responsibility for the disaster.

Forest Service investigators determined the Calf Canyon Fire was caused by a "burn pile" of branches that the agency thought was out but reignited on April 19, the Santa Fe National Forest said in a statement.

That blaze on April 22 merged with the Hermits Peak Fire, which the USFS started with a controlled burn that went out of control on April 6, the agency previously reported.

The combined blaze has so far torched over 312,320 acres(126,319 hectares) of mountain forests and valleys, an area approaching the size of greater London, and destroyed hundreds of homes.

"The pain and suffering of New Mexicans caused by the actions of the U.S. Forest Service – an agency that is intended to be a steward of our lands – is unfathomable," New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

Lujan Grisham said the USFS investigation was a step towards the federal government taking full responsibility for the destruction of property, displacement of tens of thousands of residents, and millions in state spending caused by the fire.

"The Santa Fe National Forest is 100 percent focused on suppressing these fires," SFNF Supervisor Debbie Cress said in the statement.

Blazing a more than 40-mile-long (64-km-long) path up the Sangre de Cristo mountains, the fire has destroyed watersheds and forests used for centuries by Indo-Hispano farming villages and Native American communities.

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/forest-service-says-it-started-all-new-mexicos-largest-wildfire-2022-05-27/

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

What the media won't tell you about hurricanes

In this short post, on the first day of the official Atlantic hurricane season 2022, I’ll share five points of consensus science on hurricanes that seem to be systematically ignored by the media, and especially by those on the climate beat.

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its latest report, concluded that there remains “no consensus” on the relative role of human influences on Atlantic hurricane activity.

Here is what the IPCC says exactly:

“[T]here is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase (Ting et al., 2015) and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic TC activity are outside the range of natural variability.”

One reason for the inability to unambiguously attribute causality to Atlantic hurricane activity is the large interannual and interdecadal variability. The figure below comes from one of our recent papers and it shows the large variability in U.S. mainland hurricane landfalls and damage based on the state of the El Ni�o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). There are more than 2x the median landfalls during La Ni�a than in El Ni�o and 16x the median damage — this relationship holds for the basin overall as well. We are currently in a La Ni�a phase, so watch out!

2. The IPCC has concluded that since 1900 there is “no trend in the frequency of USA landfall events.” This goes for all hurricanes and also for the strongest hurricanes, called major hurricanes.

Below are official data on continental U.S. hurricane landfalls, updated through 2021 from our recent paper. If you think that there have been a lot of major hurricanes in recent years, you’d be correct. One reason for the near-term increase in activity is an incredible unprecedented 11-year period from 2006-2017 during which no major hurricane made CONUS landfall. Recent years are more typical of patterns seen during the 20th century. So for those who come to the climate beat during the past twenty years, it would be easy to think that we didn’t used to have hurricanes and now we do. This is a good example that illustrates why trying to see climate changes with your own eyes is never a good substitute for data and applied climatology.

The data in the two graphs above have never been presented in IPCC or U.S. National Assessment reports, and I cannot recall ever seeing it in major media reporting on climate change (though I am happy to be corrected). One might think that such basic information might be of broad interest.

3. Continental U.S. landfalls are just a small proportion of all North Atlantic hurricanes, which in turn are just a small proportion of all global tropical cyclone activity. Since at least 1980, there are no clear trends in overall global hurricane and major hurricane activity.

You can see trends (or more precisely, the lack of) in the global occurrence of tropical cyclones at hurricane and major hurricane strength (12-month sums since 1980) in the figure below, courtesy @RyanMaue. A little-known fact is that the past 12 months are very close to a 42+ year low in the numbers of major hurricanes on planet Earth (note that “hurricanes” are what “tropical cyclones” are called in the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, they are the same phenomenon).

4. There are many characteristics of tropical cyclones that are under study and hypothesized to be potentially affected by human influences (including but not limited to greenhouse gas forcings). These include tropical cyclone rainfall intensity, speed of storm movement, latitude of storm formation, pace of intensification, length of seasonality and many more. You can easily find different studies and different scientists with contrasting views on the role of human influence on tropical cyclones, but at present, there is not a unified community consensus on these hypotheses, as summarized by the World Meteorological Organization in several recent expert assessments (see the end for links).

Human-caused climate change is of course real and requires vigorous implementation of adaptation and mitigation policies. And of course it is entirely plausible that human influences have had and will have detectable and attributable effects on tropical cyclones. However, if you elicit the views of tropical cyclone experts — as the World Meteorological Organization did recently — you will find a very wide range of views on current states of understandings. The importance of a subject, regrettably, does not compel certainties.

For instance, on the question whether the most intense tropical cyclones will increase worldwide due to greenhouse gas forcing, expert views range widely, from low confidence to high confidence, with many arrayed in between. And if you look across model results, is even plausible under a range of scenarios that tropical cyclones become less frequent and/or less intense. A diversity of legitimate understandings is of course OK — this is how science often works in many areas. If the topic were simple, we wouldn’t need much science.

With hurricanes often placed front and center as the most visible manifestation of climate change, accurate representation of the current, complex state of understandings can be difficult. Can you find an expert or a study to confirm whatever you want to believe on hurricanes? Sure you can — the topic is a cherry-picker’s dream. And I see advocates and polemicists feasting on cherries all through hurricane season.

What we can say with a very high degree of certainty is that the damages from tropical cyclones (both in the U.S. and globally) have increased dramatically over the past century. It is also highly certain that the main reason for this is the ever-increasing amount of wealth we place in their path. The figure below shows the estimated damage from U.S. hurricanes assuming that each hurricane season took places with levels of development of 2021, updated from another of our recent papers.

The data show no upwards trend in damage, which is exactly what we should expect given that there is also no upward trend in hurricane or major hurricane landfalls. Even though there are many aspects of hurricanes past and future that are unknown, uncertain or contested, there is a lot that we do know, but rarely discuss.

5. Hurricanes are common, incredibly destructive and will always be with us. Even so, we have learned a lot about how to prepare and recover.

The table below show damage estimates for individual storms, were they to make landfall in 2022, updated from this paper.

You can see that while a few storms of the past decade make it into the top 25 of loss events, there are many storms from the distant past which would cause much more damage., were they to occur today. That means your and my lived experience cannot capture the realities of hurricane disasters. We don’t need climate change to understand that much greater hurricane disasters are possible, just a sense of history.

With each storm comes lessons and opportunities to better prepare for future inevitable landfalls, regardless what the climate has in store for us. Indeed, policy responses to tropical cyclones — in the U.S. and around the world — are one of the great unheralded success stories of science, technology and policy of the past century. To continue, we need to be ever vigilant as successes don’t happen automatically.

It is important for people to understand that what has been observed in terms of hurricane landfalls and losses of recent years is fairly typical of what has been seen over the past century. Whatever climate signals scientists might tease out of the historical records, the impact of hurricanes on society is overwhelmingly determined by how we build, where we build, what we build, what we place inside, and how we warn, shelter, evacuate, recover and so on. That is in fact good news, because it tells us that the decisions we make (and don’t make) will determine the hurricane disasters of the future.

So sure, go ahead and debate and discuss the past and future effects of climate change on hurricanes. Pick cherries if you must. But never lose sight of the fact that the decisions we make every day will determine the impacts from hurricanes that we experience in the future.

https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATExAGI4Ny00YzNlLWM2YjYtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADBlztJEBXQEKBICXGPmvRRAcAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAAAgEMAAAAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAFk4XuLwAAAA%3D%3D

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

Why a ‘greenwashing’ crackdown should have come as no surprise

On Tuesday, about 50 German police raided the Frankfurt offices of Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm, DWS Group and sent shockwaves through the $US30 trillion ($41.8 trillion)-plus environmental, social and governance sector. DWS and the sector should, however, have seen it coming.

The raid, which sparked the resignation of DWS chief executive Asoka Woehrmann within hours, was triggered by allegations last year by a former head of sustainability at DWS, Desiree Fixler, that the fund manager had made false and misleading claims about its ESG credentials. The group had claimed in 2020 that half the $US900 billion of assets it managed were invested under ESG criteria. Fixler described DWS’ claims as a marketing tool.

The raid on Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm was triggered by allegations last year by a former head of sustainability at DWS, Desiree Fixler, that the fund manager had made false and misleading claims about its ESG credentials.
The raid on Deutsche Bank’s asset management arm was triggered by allegations last year by a former head of sustainability at DWS, Desiree Fixler, that the fund manager had made false and misleading claims about its ESG credentials.CREDIT:AP

DWS wouldn’t be the first and won’t be the last to embellish its ESG credentials to try to cash in on the tide of money flowing towards funds that invest within an ethical framework.

Nor is it only fund managers who try to benefit from the trillions of dollars flowing towards ESG-labelled funds and away from companies perceived as having weak ESG characteristics, particularly on climate-related issues.

Companies themselves have tried to “game” ESG investors by publishing ambitious carbon emissions reductions plans without doing much, if anything, to achieve them.

DWS and other ESG managers ought to have realised that there would be a spotlight shone on what they were saying about their funds and what they were actually doing because the authorities have been broadcasting their intention to crack down on “greenwashing” for several years.

Wall Street’s activist investors have guns in their sights
In Europe, where the regulatory efforts are most advanced, the European Union has adopted a corporate sustainability reporting directive that requires detailed disclosures of the way companies operate and manage social and environmental and is trying to develop a range of legislated benchmarks for asset managers that label themselves as ESG investors.

In the US the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Gary Gensler, only this week referred to proposals the SEC is now considering to improve disclosures by investment advisers and funds that “purport” to take ESG factors into consideration when making investment decisions.

Under the SEC’s proposals fund managers would have to disclose the ESG factors they consider and the specific strategies, criteria and data they use to invest in line with them. They would also have to disclose metrics like the greenhouse emissions of their portfolios and their annual progress towards their ESG objectives.

In Australia, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have both shown increasing interest in ESG-related disclosures by fund managers and companies, with ASIC starting an investigation of greenwashing by superannuation and managed funds last year and the ACCC warning that companies falsely promoting their green credentials would face an enforcement crackdown.

Even before the raid on DWS there had been other instances of regulatory action related to ESG disclosure issues.

Last month the SEC fined the Bank of New York Mellon Corp $US1.5 million for misleading claims about its ESG funds.

The commission has also taken action against Brazil’s Vale, alleging the giant iron ore miner had made false and misleading statements about dam safety in its sustainability reports and other ESG disclosures.

Ensuring that what ESG-labelled funds actually do accords with what they say they do is not straightforward task, given that there is no consensus about what constitutes ethical investing and few benchmarks at this point against which to test whether funds’ behaviours are true to what is a very broad range of ESG labels.

It’s the dual appeal of funds that claim to be doing good and backing companies that meet ESG criteria and the claims of superior performance that is turbo-charging the sector’s growth.

Is an ethical investment one that has no carbon footprint and ticks all the boxes for good governance or could the category also include, say, a mining company with a clear and measurable commitment to reducing its carbon emissions and those of its customers?

A case in point might be Shell which, with the help of a court order, is committed to almost halving its emissions and those of its suppliers by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. Should it be shunned or supported by ESG investors?

In practice, companies like Shell are shunned by some investors on ESG grounds but embraced by others. ESG investing frameworks are broad and vague.

Equally, it’s hard to test the sector’s claims of superior performance – claims that have helped, along with the increased interest of investors in ethical investing, drive the massive inflows of funds towards the ESG managers. Bloomberg’s intelligence unit has forecast that the sector will have about $US50 trillion of funds under management by 2025, or about a third of the world’s managed funds.

It’s the dual appeal of funds that claim to be doing good and backing companies that meet ESG criteria and the claims of superior performance – end-investors can both assuage their consciences and be rewarded for it – that is turbo-charging the sector’s growth.

Whether that’s because the underlying companies that tick their boxes are inherently better-performing or whether the external environment in recent years favoured the types of stocks that generate fewer ESG issues (carbon-light tech stocks did spectacularly until very recently) and whether the same investment performance could be achieved by non-ESG-labelled funds with good asset allocations and stock selections is all open to debate.

What the regulators apparently are not going to debate, however, is the intensifying push to ensure that funds claiming to be ESG investors can demonstrate that they have the systems and strategies and can supply the metrics to support and substantiate those claims.

That’s not unreasonable. What the funds actually do should line up with their marketing. For the funds, and their regulators, however, given the extent of the grey areas in the definitions of ESG investing that might prove to be easier, or at least more challenging, when said than done.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/why-a-greenwashing-crackdown-should-have-come-as-no-surprise-20220602-p5aqh7.html

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

Australia: Legislating Net-Zero by 2050 Unnecessary: Nationals Leader David Littleproud

Newly elected National Party leader David Littleproud has said while his party is committed to net-zero by 2050, implementing legislation around it is unnecessary.

Speaking to ABC Radio National on Tuesday morning, Littleproud said that he doesn’t believe the federal government needs to tell Australians what to do.

“Australians are doing this by themselves,” he said. “I mean, we set a target of 26 to 28 percent and Australians by themselves, not only rooftop solar, but Australian industry themselves, are taking the leading role.”

Littleproud stressed that households and industry are doing it anyway because they’re part of a global community.

“I trust Australians; I actually back Australians,” he said. “I don’t need to walk into this place and put a piece of legislation over them,” Littleproud said.

“I think Australians are far more sensible than we give them credit for,” he said, adding that what’s most important is to put the environmental infrastructure around them to achieve emissions targets.

Littleproud went on to say that he has a lot of confidence in the Australian public because emissions have already been reduced by 20 percent, and most of that has been achieved through rooftop solar, while industries are also doing it because they have to be competitive and market their product in international marketplaces.

“So I don’t think government needs to tell everyone what to do all the time. I think Australians have had a gutful of that,” he said.

“They’ve had two and a half years of being told what to do. And if governments just get out of our lives but put the guide rails around us to go and do the things that we need to do, we’ll do it because we’re good people.”

This comes after now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced before the election that Labor had a plan to reduce carbon emissions by 43 percent by 2030, topping Liberal’s 35 percent by 2030 target.

Labor’s Powering Australia plan includes upgrading the national electricity grid, making electric cars cheaper, and adopting the Business Council of Australia’s recommendation that facilities reduce emissions gradually and predictably over time.

Labor will also provide direct financial support for measures that improve energy efficiency within existing industries and develop new industries in regional Australia, as well as work with large businesses to provide greater transparency on their climate-related risks and opportunities.

Former Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman told ABC Radio National on Monday that the new Labor government was elected with a clear mandate about its 2030 emissions reduction target, and the Opposition—Liberals and Nationals, if a coalition is once again formed—should go along with it. “There is now bipartisanship on the end goal, which is the net-zero commitment by 2050, ” he said.

“But for me, I think that the easy early step that the Opposition could take is to recognise that the Labor government does have a mandate for its 43 percent target and that it will accept the outcome, the verdict of voters on that.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/legislating-net-zero-by-2050-unnecessary-nationals-leader-david-littleproud_4501521.html

Wednesday, June 01, 2022

Steve Baker MP warns of risks of computer modelling

Steve Baker’s warning was issued in the foreword to a new paper on some of the problems with climate models in recent years.

He draws parallels with the manifest failure of epidemiological models during the Covid pandemic, and highlights recent studies which suggest that the newest climate models are incompatible with empirical observations of the climate.

He said:

“The Net Zero target in place, largely following from climate model predictions about what the future may hold, have implications for every human being on the planet alive today and for billions as yet unborn. If we get this wrong, humanity as a whole, now and in the future, will suffer the consequences. The situation could scarcely be more serious.”

The paper, by GWPF deputy director Andrew Montford, reviews in simple language, some of the key failings of climate models, as revealed in the scientific literature.

Mr Montford said:

“Claims of a climate crisis rely almost entirely on climate model outputs. But once you know what climate models get wrong, it’s hard to take them seriously as any sort of guide to the future, never mind government policy.”

https://mailchi.mp/55311291efa0/steve-baker-mp-warns-of-risks-of-computer-modelling-189095?e=cc88839e92

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

Climate change to blame for monkeypox outbreak, says professor

Climate change is likely behind the global outbreak of monkeypox, a professor of health systems has said.

The disease had largely been eradicated due to smallpox vaccines but the few people who do contract it usually do so in tropical rainforest areas of central and west Africa - often after coming into contact with animals.

However, in recent weeks hundreds of cases have been recorded across Europe and yesterday Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly revealed there was one confirmed case in the Republic of Ireland.

“Climate change is driving animal populations out of their normal ranges and human populations into areas where animals live,” Professor Staines of DCU explained to On The Record with Gavan Reilly.

“There’s a very detailed analysis of about 40 years of data published in [the journal] Nature a few months ago that documents what has happened and predicts what may happen in the future and it’s very much driven now by climate change - and to an extent by human population growth.

“But climate change is pushing people into cities, it’s pushing animals into closer proximity with people and we’re seeing connections that we never saw before.

“So this is what living with climate change looks like.”

Minister Donnelly has said that medics and close contacts of those with the disease will be offered vaccines but added that normal PPE would give people strong protection.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/climate-change-to-blame-for-monkeypox-outbreak-says-professor-1348966

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

National Grid told to prepare for coal this winter as Britain braces for Putin to cut off Europe's gas supply

Kwasi Kwarteng has asked National Grid to bolster electricity supplies using coal this winter amid concerns Russia’s supply of gas to Europe will be cut off.

The Business Secretary has instructed National Grid’s electricity system operator (ESO) to work with the industry to make sure extra generating capacity not fuelled by gas is available.

Last month Mr Kwarteng wrote to the owners of the UK’s remaining coal-fired power stations to ask them to stay open longer than planned.

In a letter to Fintan Slye, executive director of the ESO, this week, Mr Kwarteng warned of “high levels of uncertainty and volatility expected in energy markets over the winter”.

He said: “While we are in no way dependent on gas from Russia, I am mindful that a shortage of gas in Europe could put considerable pressure on the European gas market and suppliers of liquefied natural gas, with the potential for additional, consequential impact on electricity markets.

“We must therefore consider all prudent steps to mitigate these risks and bolster our energy security this winter. These risks would be best mitigated by significantly increasing the amount of capacity that is available over the winter, particularly non-gas-fired capacity.

“To this end, I request that you work with industry to explore and seek to deliver frameworks to support the operations of additional non-gas-fired capacity over the coming winter that would otherwise not be available."

The letter is likely to add to concerns about prolonged high gas and electricity prices. On Thursday, the Government introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to help provide support for households struggling with energy bills.

Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, has raised the prospect that the tax could be widened to electricity generators profiting from high energy prices, although Mr Kwarteng is believed to be opposed to the idea.

Gas is currently used to meet more than 35pc of the nation's electricity demand. The UK has typically bought less than 4pc of its gas directly from Russia, but is connected to European markets which are heavily reliant on the Kremlin's fossil fuel.

The EU typically gets about 40pc of its gas from Russia but is trying to cut its reliance. Meanwhile, Russia has cut off supplies to Poland, Bulgaria and Finland since the start of the war and there are concerns it could go further.

On Friday Kadri Simson, the EU’s energy commissioner, told the Financial Times that any member state might be next to cut off, and the EU is preparing contingency plans.

Options to provide extra back-up on the UK system are relatively limited, particularly given the need for supply that can be relatively easily dialled up and down to respond to demand.

Under current market rules, power generators are paid to be on standby ready to provide back-up supply, funded by consumer bills. Mr Kwarteng has urged National Grid ESO to make sure any deals with generators deliver value for money.

Drax and EDF were both due to shut down their remaining coal-fired turbines this year, while Uniper was due to shut one of its four turbines running this year and keep the other three running to 2024. The plants are in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

Mr Kwarteng said he remained committed to the government’s plan to phase out coal-fired power generation by September 2024, adding the country needs to cut its dependency on imported fossil fuels.

But he added: “This transition has to be orderly, recognising the critical role fossil fuels will play as we deploy low carbon alternatives.”

A government spokesman said: “In light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is only right that we explore a wide range of options to further bolster our energy security and domestic supply.

“While there is no shortage of supply, we may need to make our remaining coal-fired power stations available to provide additional back up electricity this coming winter if needed.

“It remains our firm commitment to end the use of coal power by October 2024.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/27/national-grid-told-prepare-coal-winter/?mc_cid=0d96a9d0ee&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Labor deliberately designed climate policies to thwart Greenies

New Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists voters gave Labor a mandate to deliver its “ambitious” climate plan, warning independents and Greens that his crossbench-proof climate policy won’t require negotiating an end to coal and gas.

Greens leader Adam Bandt is demanding that Labor step up its climate targets, including a ban on new coal and gas projects. However, Bowen said he deliberately designed the party’s Powering Australia climate policies so they could be implemented without the support of the Senate, where the Greens hold the balance of power.

“In relation to the Senate, a lot of the stuff in Powering Australia doesn’t need legislation; there’s a lot of stuff we’ll just be getting on with,” he told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald.

Labor has committed to legislating its target of hitting net zero emissions by 2050 – a goal with bipartisan support. However, it has not promised to do the same for its 2030 target, which is to cut greenhouse emissions by 43 per cent from 2005 levels, even though that is the party’s preference.

No new laws are required to implement the key elements of Labor’s Powering Australia climate policy over the next three years.

“We designed that very deliberately so that we would have scope to just get on with the policy and not get bogged down in the climate wars,” Bowen said.

He has designated two areas to do the heavy lifting in Labor’s first term in government under the Powering Australia plan.

One involves tightening the Safeguard Mechanism, which lay dormant under the Coalition government, to impose caps on Australia’s 215 biggest polluters.

The other is a $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund that will pour money into the electricity grid and expand its capacity so that it can handle a near-tripling of renewables, which are expected to comprise 82 per cent of the grid by 2030.

Bowen said Labor’s win, which delivered the party a majority in the lower house, represented a mandate for the climate policy it took to the election. Bending to the Greens’ demands to veto coal and gas projects would be a betrayal of the electorate, he said.

“I find that argument just a little bit odd,” he said. “The [Greens’] argument goes something like this – to oversimplify it: ‘Congratulations on winning the election. The first thing we’d like you to do is trash the policies you took to the election.’ ”

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-deliberately-designed-climate-policies-to-skip-over-the-crossbench-20220531-p5apty.html

https://www.ft.com/content/088f544d-2f7e-404a-9a19-43f1fda24ffa

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/02/opinion/inflation-vegetarian-vegan.html

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/climate-change-could-see-clouds-24135314

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/new-minister-says-coal-may-remain-king-for-decades-under-labors-watch/news-story/43bce3b3428c1d14aee09d6904a4ae25

Sunday, June 05, 2022

https://principia-scientific.com/world-economic-forum-urges-people-to-eat-seaweed-algae-cacti-to-save-the-planet/

https://climaterealism.com/2022/06/wrong-livescience-global-weather-not-worsening/

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/organic-farming-is-turning-a-food-crisis-into-a-catastrophe/news-story/944625bd3168b212eddccadeaed82640

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/rita-panahi-vulnerable-suffering-at-hands-of-climate-catastrophists/news-story/1f6e7d60ff14b3f37989a79ff294d011

Friday, June 03, 2022

https://www.foxnews.com/media/newt-gingrich-blasts-pennsylvania-democrats-entry-green-energy-initiative

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2022/06/unprecedented-level-of-federal-overreach-16-governors-urge-biden-to-rescind-costly-wall-street-climate-rules/

https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-05-30-global-freezing-arctic-ice-levels-30-year-high.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10876855/Barnaby-Joyce-issues-dire-warning-Australia-amid-power-crisis.html

Thursday, June 02, 2022

https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/forest-service-says-it-started-all-new-mexicos-largest-wildfire-2022-05-27/

https://outlook.live.com/mail/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATExAGI4Ny00YzNlLWM2YjYtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADBlztJEBXQEKBICXGPmvRRAcAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAAAgEMAAAAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAFk4XuLwAAAA%3D%3D

https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/why-a-greenwashing-crackdown-should-have-come-as-no-surprise-20220602-p5aqh7.html

https://www.theepochtimes.com/legislating-net-zero-by-2050-unnecessary-nationals-leader-david-littleproud_4501521.html

Wednesday, June 01, 2022

https://mailchi.mp/55311291efa0/steve-baker-mp-warns-of-risks-of-computer-modelling-189095?e=cc88839e92

https://www.newstalk.com/news/climate-change-to-blame-for-monkeypox-outbreak-says-professor-1348966

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

National Grid told to prepare for coal this winter as
Britain braces for Putin to cut off Europe's gas supply

Kwasi Kwarteng has asked National Grid to bolster electricity supplies using coal this winter amid concerns Russia’s supply of gas to Europe will be cut off.

The Business Secretary has instructed National Grid’s electricity system operator (ESO) to work with the industry to make sure extra generating capacity not fuelled by gas is available.

Last month Mr Kwarteng wrote to the owners of the UK’s remaining coal-fired power stations to ask them to stay open longer than planned.

In a letter to Fintan Slye, executive director of the ESO, this week, Mr Kwarteng warned of “high levels of uncertainty and volatility expected in energy markets over the winter”.

He said: “While we are in no way dependent on gas from Russia, I am mindful that a shortage of gas in Europe could put considerable pressure on the European gas market and suppliers of liquefied natural gas, with the potential for additional, consequential impact on electricity markets.

“We must therefore consider all prudent steps to mitigate these risks and bolster our energy security this winter. These risks would be best mitigated by significantly increasing the amount of capacity that is available over the winter, particularly non-gas-fired capacity.

“To this end, I request that you work with industry to explore and seek to deliver frameworks to support the operations of additional non-gas-fired capacity over the coming winter that would otherwise not be available."

The letter is likely to add to concerns about prolonged high gas and electricity prices. On Thursday, the Government introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to help provide support for households struggling with energy bills.

Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, has raised the prospect that the tax could be widened to electricity generators profiting from high energy prices, although Mr Kwarteng is believed to be opposed to the idea.

Gas is currently used to meet more than 35pc of the nation's electricity demand. The UK has typically bought less than 4pc of its gas directly from Russia, but is connected to European markets which are heavily reliant on the Kremlin's fossil fuel.

The EU typically gets about 40pc of its gas from Russia but is trying to cut its reliance. Meanwhile, Russia has cut off supplies to Poland, Bulgaria and Finland since the start of the war and there are concerns it could go further.

On Friday Kadri Simson, the EU’s energy commissioner, told the Financial Times that any member state might be next to cut off, and the EU is preparing contingency plans.

Options to provide extra back-up on the UK system are relatively limited, particularly given the need for supply that can be relatively easily dialled up and down to respond to demand.

Under current market rules, power generators are paid to be on standby ready to provide back-up supply, funded by consumer bills. Mr Kwarteng has urged National Grid ESO to make sure any deals with generators deliver value for money.

Drax and EDF were both due to shut down their remaining coal-fired turbines this year, while Uniper was due to shut one of its four turbines running this year and keep the other three running to 2024. The plants are in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

Mr Kwarteng said he remained committed to the government’s plan to phase out coal-fired power generation by September 2024, adding the country needs to cut its dependency on imported fossil fuels.

But he added: “This transition has to be orderly, recognising the critical role fossil fuels will play as we deploy low carbon alternatives.”

A government spokesman said: “In light of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, it is only right that we explore a wide range of options to further bolster our energy security and domestic supply.

“While there is no shortage of supply, we may need to make our remaining coal-fired power stations available to provide additional back up electricity this coming winter if needed.

“It remains our firm commitment to end the use of coal power by October 2024.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/27/national-grid-told-prepare-coal-winter/?mc_cid=0d96a9d0ee&mc_eid=cc88839e92

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-deliberately-designed-climate-policies-to-skip-over-the-crossbench-20220531-p5apty.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)

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

For the notes and pix appearing in the sidebar of the original blog see HERE

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.