Monday, October 03, 2022

Nearly all of Australia's coral reefs are at risk of being wiped out in less than two decades

There is NO evidence given for this. Just a Warmist claim, possibly based on models but that is guesswork, not evidence

The idea that warming is bad for corals is completely unscientific anyway. Barrier reef corals are most diverse in the Torres strait, which is the WARMEST part of the reef. Like most living things, corals LIKE warmth

SHOCKING evidence has been released claiming that nearly all of Australia's coral reefs are at risk of being wiped out in less than two decades.

The report by the World Resources Institute claims that by 2030, 90 per cent of Australia's reefs will suffer from the overwhelming effects of climate change like warmer seas and acidification.

It also outlines the threat to the rest of the world's coral reefs, with research suggesting that many could be obliterated by 2050 due to pollution, climate change and over-fishing.

The report encourages Australia not to waste any time in fighting the prediction, particularly because of the impact reef degredation will have on tourism and the economy.

Dr Clive Wilkinson, the United Nations sponsored Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network coordinator, urged Australia "to be part of the global solution to climate change, as our reefs will suffer like others around the world and this will threaten the $5 to $6 billion per year that the Great Barrier Reef means to the Australian economy."

"Australians have no right to be complacent as the vast majority of our reefs will be seriously threatened by rising sea temperatures and increasing acidification in less than 20 years," he said.

Today, 40 per cent of Australia's reefs are under pressure from rising sea temperatures and other threats linked to climate change.

However, 75 per cent of the reefs are in marine protected areas, which is a contributing factor to the improvement in fish numbers and reef resilience.


How ‘Net Zeroists’ will keep their lights on

Picture a Teal, perpetual querulousness of mien sharpened by the chill of the morning, shuffling fluffy-slippered across the freezing travertine from her bathroom, where the hot water’s run out, to her designer kitchen where, for all the glittering imported gadgets, she has trouble striking a match, the packet being so damp, to light the primus stove retrieved from the shed to make a cup of coffee on.

Or a climate scientist, lab coat drenched with sweat, fanning himself with The Guardian as he climbs onto his desk to bash the inactive Fujitsu vainly with his shoe in the hope of extracting a flow of cooling air.

You can picture it but it’ll never happen. The sun mightn’t shine and the wind mightn’t blow but the kind of zealots who, in their quest for Net Zero, will have reduced our power supply to an irregular flicker will be fine. Whatever shortages lesser mortals have to put up with, the people who run things in this country won’t be short of electricity and gas, you watch.

I used to think a few cold showers and the gas running out while the soufflé was in the oven would be enough to induce our Green-washed ruling class to take a more sceptical attitude to ‘renewable energy’. But not if the soufflé rises as it should and the hot water flows uninterruptedly.

This class imposes its pet projects and the rest of us pay for them through taxes, surcharges, or in the case of Net Zero, the inconvenience and privation to come. They may occasionally burble about ‘the welfare of all Australians’ but they don’t care about people on lower incomes, as they’ve shown by pursuing energy policies that have given us shamefully rising power prices many people scrimp to pay but the rich can easily afford and, if themselves ‘renewables’ investors, make fortunes out of.

You might have expected that the unions, representing so many workers on a fixed wage, would have opposed climate fanaticism and forced their Labor puppet government to protect reliable sources of energy. But no, as in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, the union bosses and the people who run things are all pals together. The bosses have swallowed all the climate fiddle-faddle and are loftily uninterested in helping their members pay the soaring power costs.

The sensible thing to do, to ensure the growth and prosperity all governments claim to want, would be to abandon the obsession with ‘renewables’. It’s clear by now that the climate apocalypse so long predicted isn’t going to happen. But common sense will not prevail. There are too many vested interests in energy alarmism to allow the whole charade to be called off.

Faced then with the inevitable failure of wind and solar energy, which even if we could count on endless gales and sunny days and clothe the landscape with forests of skeletal windmills and drape every roof in photovoltaic panels would not generate enough power to make up for the fossil fuels we are banishing, how will the ruling classes cope? They have set themselves such absurd targets – Net Zero non-renewables by 2035 is one of the wilder flights of fancy – that it would be a most embarrassing climbdown to follow the European example and stay with dirty old coal to keep the country lit and heated.

No, they will cope by entrenching even deeper the differences between the haves and the have-nots. There won’t be enough power to keep everything going so they will make sure they get all they want, and whatever’s left can be shared among the rest of us. They will do this as they do everything else, through their superior wealth. They will create a category of ‘premium consumers’ – platinum users, gold users, some name like that, who by paying extra to the energy companies will be guaranteed a constant supply of power, especially at times of peak use.

This extra fee will be set high enough so that, when added to the already exaggerated costs of energy, it is beyond the resources of the average household. It is ordinary families who’ll have to put up with the shortage of power for every household task. See if you can find an ancient carpet sweeper at an op shop: the vacuum won’t work.

This power shortage will be presented as progress and wrapped in weaselly advertising. ‘Energy that’s tailored to your home needs’, the unctuous voice-over will intone through an image of swirling steam. ‘When you sign up with GoodGas you get just the amount of power you want, with no waste.’ Translated, this will mean you’re offered a ‘budget’ contract with the gas or electricity company stipulating supply at certain hours of the day or week. (The small print, naturally, will ‘regret that it may not be always possible to maintain supply at the contracted times’.) You’ll be ordered to switch everything off at peak times, as already foreshadowed by the European Union president, or have it switched off for you.

Then what? Having condemned us to shiver and starve, do Net Zero enthusiasts imagine that our ‘good example’ will touch the hearts of polluters like China and India, whose huge emissions make ours look like a puff of smoke from a Greenie’s spliff? That these industrial giants will convert their coal-powered economies to ‘renewables’ just in time to prevent the planet from becoming a molten ball or whatever the prediction is.

Are they dumb enough to believe that, or is the whole Net Zero crusade a fraud, just another weapon from the Marxist armoury in the never-ending strategy to weaken and ultimately destroy our civilisation? Either way, climate fanatics will soon have undermined the West from within, making us literally powerless.


Man Plugs $80k+ Electric Truck Into His House, Finds Out It Will Take Over 4 Days to Charge

Congratulations. You’ve just purchased one of the most expensive high-performance electric trucks on the market.

You’ve gone green and you’ve done it in style with the GMC Hummer, starting at $86,645. That’s right — the Hummer’s now a green vehicle! What was once the biggest villain in the left’s war on fossil fuels is now the poster child for responsible off-roading.

That’s a hefty chunk of change, but at least you’ll be able to save a bit with government incentives. Most importantly, you can charge the car at home just like it was any other appliance. Easy, convenient and cheap, right?

Well, if you have a day or four to spare, sure.

In a viral video from a YouTube channel that specializes in electric vehicles, a man who tries to plug the Hummer into his home to charge finds it will take, at best, one day to charge — and that’s with special equipment installed.

Without it, you could be there for four days.

The video begins with standard 120V charging — or Level 1 charging, to use official jargon. This is the standard current your home already offers.

“Right now it’s about 6 p.m. on Tuesday,” the man says. “And it says it will be full by Saturday at 10:55 [p.m.], which is four-plus days of charging. Wow.”

To be fair, however, this won’t be how most Hummer owners will be charging their vehicle. Level 2 chargers are upgraded home stations which deliver a significantly higher amount of electricity than your regular home circuit would be able to deliver — but they require special equipment and installation.

According to, the cost of a Level 2 charger is about $500 without installation, which must be done by a professional electrician.

However, our intrepid Hummer owner had one of those — the JuiceBox, a 240v charger, installed in his garage.

How much difference did that make? Not as much as you might think.

“Now it says it will be done tomorrow by 6:30 [p.m.],” the video narrator says. “So about 24 hours of charging from four percent to 100 percent.”

Of course, you don’t have to go to full charge; the vehicle’s screen says the Level 2 charger was adding 14 miles of range per hour. However, when you can fill a gas-powered truck in five minutes and not have to worry about installing a fast charger or leaving your truck plugged in every night, that’s not exactly easy or convenient.

And by the way, it’s not entirely cheap, either — especially if you decide you don’t want to charge your Hummer at home but at fast-charging stations that can get the job done in two hours.

Car and Driver went to an Electrify America charging station, where it cost over $100 to “fill up” the Hummer at 43 cents per kilowatt hour.

This is roughly consistent with how much it would cost to fill up a gas-powered Hummer made in the final production year — although Electrify America does provide a membership program that reduces the cost by roughly one-quarter. If you charge it at home, you’ll only be spending about $35 to fill it up — but you’ll be waiting quite a while.

And, by the by, don’t expect to use your electric truck to do truck-like things quite as well as gas-powered trucks do.

Automotive YouTuber Tyler “Hoovie” Hoover put Ford’s F-150 Lightning — another electric truck, although somewhat more modestly priced than the Hummer — to the test by towing an empty aluminum trailer 32 miles, and then assessing how well it handled its maximum towing capacity by then ferrying a recently purchased 1930 Ford Model A pickup truck back to home base.

Hoovie called the experience a “complete and total disaster from beginning to end.” He started with a 200-mile charge but lost 68 miles of range in the 32 miles he was towing just the aluminum trailer. Once the Model A was aboard, he lost “almost 90 miles of range in 30 miles.”

Cheer up, Hoovie. Plug that baby into a Level 1 charger and you’ll be ready to make a return trip in another few days.

Now, I don’t pretend that most — in fact, almost any — Hummer owners are going to be using Level 1. If you can drop a cool $86k on a retro-styled EV pickup truck, you can also get a Level 2 charger installed in your garage without your bank account incurring too much of a scrape. That still means 24 hours of charging, though, something that could be critical in an emergency.

Say you live in the state of California, which plans to outlaw the sale of new gas vehicles by 2035. Let’s also say your residence is suddenly threatened by a wildfire — I know, a very unusual thing in California, but we’re just spitballing hypotheticals here. If you only have 10 percent charge and you have to load everything you can into your vehicle, you don’t have a day to get a full tank. Good luck getting far and good luck finding an open fast-charging station on the highway, particularly in times of natural disaster.

Look, this isn’t to say electric vehicles don’t have their time and place. If you don’t mind the charging times and high price, the Hummer is actually a pretty sweet ride; it can go from 0-60 mph in 3.3 seconds, something the original Hummer might not have been able to do in 3.3 hours. It’s a high-tech, versatile vehicle that, from all appearances, is a blast.

But let’s be clear: The Hummer and its electric brethren aren’t at the point where they can replace gas-powered trucks, the same way EVs across the spectrum aren’t at the point where they can replace equivalent internal-combustion vehicles. Why are we on the precipice, then, of forcing new-car buyers to pay more for a vehicle that’s less convenient and often can’t do the work they need it to do?

EV technology won’t be ready to replace gas-powered cars anytime soon, and ignoring reality doesn’t make it go away — no matter how many pro-EV laws the Democrats pass.


Energy crisis in Europe exposes the shortcomings of renewable energy

The global energy picture has changed drastically since the United Nations Climate Change Conference last November. Several European Union countries that once depended on Russia for their energy needs sought to cut ties with Moscow as a retaliation for the invasion of Ukraine.

While Europe attempts to find fast and affordable energy alternatives, the restrictions on Russian energy imports have raised concerns over the global energy security—and renewable energy transition.

Ukrainian environmental groups have logged 514 cases of potential environmental impacts caused by Russian forces so far, ranging from damage to industrial facilities to impacts on ecosystems. Two leaking Russian gas pipelines to Europe were discovered this week, and countries are turning to non-Russian gas and reopening coal-fired power plants, despite pledging to speed up the end of fossil fuel at the COP26.

In the U.S., some governments are even considering gasoline subsidies in response to the surging gas and oil costs. All seems to imply that in efforts to keep the lights on, the fight against climate change is falling off the priority list amid skyrocketing energy prices and supply shocks.

According to the European bureau chief for The Globe and Mail and award-winning reporter Eric Reguly, the ongoing energy war could threaten the European Commission’s bid to become climate-neutral by 2050.

“This crisis in Europe exposed the shortcomings of renewable energy,” said Reguly. “There just was not enough of it around to make up for the gas shortfall when Vladimir Putin turned off the taps.”

Reguly is one of the few foreign correspondents left in the world of journalism. Currently based in Rome, Italy, he has primarily covered stories on business, economic, financial, environmental, and war.

“The 2009 financial crisis, which I was here for, was very, very severe, but this is a different crisis,” he said. “It's more broad-based. It's not just a banking crisis. It's not a debt crisis. This is affecting every consumer, family, and business.”

For the EU, U.S.compressed natural gas, called liquified natural gas (LNG) has turned out to be the easiest and cheapest solution—the real “winner in this energy war,” told Reguly.

With the looming cold winter months without Russian gas flow, the European economy is believed to import almost 40% more LNG, while heating bills are expected to double from last year.

Due to the growing trend of corporations making ESG-related commitments, energy prices began rising well before the war, said Reguly.

Ironically, the current global state reveals that a green energy shift might be further than advertised, Reguly said.

“[Green energy] grew faster 20 years ago than it is now, which not many people realize,” he said. “You read the press, you read the hype, you go to the COP climate change conferences, and you hear that renewable energy is going to save the day. This crisis really showed, to me anyway, that green energy is just not there yet.”

On the other hand, the opposite is also believed to be true despite the crisis’ setbacks. Soaring oil and gas prices might have a similar effect as a carbon tax and push the need for green innovation and its commercial deployment, leading to greater climate action in the long-term.

What’s sure is that energy costs are bound to stay high for a while. We must hope and push our governments to ultimately stick to climate policies and accelerate the path toward a greener, fairer future for all.




Sunday, October 02, 2022

Never Let a Devastating Natural Disaster Go to Waste

Be prepared for Democrats to exploit the devastation of Hurricane Ian to peddle demodernization. And because there is no conclusive way for anyone to prove that global warming isn’t triggering every natural disaster—and because nature offers a continuous flow of these terrifying events and always will—the exploitation will never stop.

The effort began in earnest after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane that devastated an unprepared New Orleans.

There was Al Gore, with his grade-school “science” charts and cartoonish satellite images (water, the color of fire!), emotionally manipulating audiences with images of destruction and suffering. The problem was that “An Inconvenient Truth” suggested—among numerous other dire predictions that would never come to pass—that climate change had not only caused Katrina, despite negligible warming, but that it portended the dawn of an age of shocking and intense hurricanes.

After 2005, Florida didn’t get hit with another hurricane until 2016 and Louisiana didn’t see a major one until 2020 (also the fault of climate change.) It is debatable that storms that do make landfall do so with more intensity or that Category 3-plus hurricanes are increasing.

Overall, the frequency of hurricanes has slightly declined since 1900. From 1851-1860, 19 hurricanes made landfall in the United States. From 2011-2020, 19 hurricanes made landfall in the United States. The average per decade between 1860-2011 is about 18. In the decade of 1941-1950, 10 major hurricanes hit the United States.

“Hurricane Ian gets nasty quickly, turbocharged by warm water,” explains The Associated Press, which has been true since the first hurricane formed. More “climate havoc,” says The New York Times, as Ian threatens to hit the same exact places that storms have always hit.

Today’s media simply can’t report on any flood or tornado or hurricane or brain-eating amoeba without making it about their favorite policy hobby horse. It just feels like things are worse, you know?

“What effect does climate change have on this phenomenon?” CNN’s Don Lemon asks Jamie Rhome, the acting director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center, about Hurricane Ian. “Because it seems these storms are intensifying.”

“I don’t think you can link climate change to any one event. On the whole, on the cumulative, climate change may be making storms worse. But to link it to any one event, I would caution against that,” answers Rhome.

“OK, listen, I grew up there. And these storms are intensifying,” responds Lemon.

He grew up there.

Joy Behar, co-host of “The View,” noted Wednesday that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says he is “not in the pews of the church of the global warming leftists.” “This is what he thinks about climate change. And now, his state is getting hit with one of the worst hurricanes that we will ever see!”

This is a quite common attack, but it’s a non sequitur. Even if we accepted every alarmist forecast about anthropogenic global warming, and embraced the Democrats’ net-zero plan and banned gas-powered engines and fossil fuels by 2050 or 2030 or even 2024, the temperature wouldn’t be any different today. Forget India and China: Not a single major economy that signed onto the Paris accord has met its goals.

Of course, the underlying claim is also untrue. Since Behar’s birth in 1942, Florida has seen 48 hurricanes make landfall. Three of them have been Category 5 (so worse), nine of them have been Category 4 (including Ian), and 11 of them Category 3.

Granted, Behar was not around for 1900s Great Galveston hurricane, which hit eight years before Model Ts began emitting carbon into the air; it likely killed somewhere around 10,000 people in Texas. The 1926 Great Miami hurricane killed 372, causing an estimated, inflation-adjusted $164 billion in damage. Only around 150,000 people lived in all of Dade County back in those days. The Great Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 was tied with 2019’s Hurricane Dorian for strongest maximum sustained landfall winds (185 mph). Those were pretty bad storms, as were many others.

Critics will, no doubt, point out the rising cost of insurance payments due to hurricanes and other natural disasters. This is largely due to the concentration of people and wealth in coastal regions, a consequence of both rising population and wealth, and federal insurance programs that incentivize people to take on this risk.

Critics will also point out that hurricanes are far less deadly now than they have been in the past because we’ve instituted warning systems and improved infrastructure and preparedness.

And that’s right. Acclimatizing to the realities of climate is far cheaper and more effective than any state-compelled dismantling of modernity. No amount of scaremongering can change that reality.


Democrats blaming climate change for Hurricane Ian at odds with science, experts say

Multiple experts contacted by Fox News Digital argued that there isn't sufficient evidence to suggest climate change caused Hurricane Ian or any individual natural disaster.

The experts' comments come as a series of media outlets, Democrats and progressive commentators continue to blame the hurricane on human-caused global warming. Hurricane Ian slammed into southwest Florida as a Category 4 storm on Wednesday, causing more than a million residents to lose power and prompting stark safety warnings from Florida officials.

"What they're trying to do is politicize the pain and suffering of these people to promote their green agenda," Gregory Wrightstone, the executive director of the climate policy think tank CO2 Coalition, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "Well, their policies and their agenda to promote renewables will do far greater economic destruction to the country and Florida."

Over the last several days, media outlets, including the New York Times, Associated Press, Politico, NPR and Axios, have published news stories reporting that climate change is to blame for Hurricane Ian and the storm's rapid intensification. A Time magazine article said the "science is well known" that climate change created the conditions for Hurricane Ian.

In addition, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., appeared to suggest that Americans need to vote for Democrats to avoid future hurricanes during an interview Tuesday. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., tweeted Thursday that "the rapid storm intensification we're seeing with Hurricane Ian will become more common and more dangerous" as the climate changes.

And a series of progressive commentators and climate activists took to social media to similarly peg the hurricane on global warming.

"Ian is a climate change hurricane," Pam Keith, a former Democratic Senate candidate and founder of left-wing firm Center for Employment Justice, tweeted Wednesday.

"[Hurricane Ian] is a textbook example of climate change impacting people," Nina Turner, a senior fellow at progressive think tank Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy, added. "Climate change isn’t political, it’s reality."

However, Wrightstone and the other experts contacted by Fox News Digital rejected those arguments, arguing that individual storms cannot be linked to climate change.

"If you read what [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)] says on hurricanes, there's just not enough data," Steve Milloy, a senior legal fellow at the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, told Fox News Digital.

"There's nothing to back up what they're saying is," he continued. "There were about 16 major hurricanes between 1916 and 1965 but only six since 1965. So, clearly major hurricanes happen with lower levels of carbon dioxide. That doesn't add up for them."

A NOAA study last revised in July concluded that its models and analysis didn't support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. The study, authored by senior NOAA scientist Tom Knutson, added that it was "premature to conclude with high confidence" that human-caused increasing greenhouse gases have had any impact on hurricane activity in the Atlantic.

Jamie Rhome, the acting director of NOAA's National Hurricane Center, echoed the study's findings in an interview with CNN on Tuesday, pushing back against anchor Don Lemon's argument that Hurricane Ian's intensification is tied to climate change. Rhome said he "would caution against" linking any one storm to climate change.


Will crucial rare metals run out?

Researchers from the State Key Laboratory of Geological Processes at the China University of Geosciences, the Department of Earth Science at Adelaide University and the Faculty of Science at Kochi University in Japan, say that the lack of vital components means it may not be possible to build enough electric vehicles in the future, and the supply of rare metals to some countries for computers may also be disrupted.

They argue that future projections suggest that the critical metals required for low carbon solar and wind technologies and electric vehicles and their chargers indicates that many of those metals, particularly Co, Ni, Cu, Se, Ag, Cd, In, Te, and Pt, may be severely to terminally depleted by 2060 if current Net Zero plans are followed, making further low carbon technology production impossible.

They point out that because many of the uses of these rare metals are non-renewable to ensure their supply would require increased exploration with an emphasis on unmined deposits not so far exploited because of their high risk factors and mining difficulties. Such exploration would mean excavating lower grade ores in more inaccessible or deeper mines. This would lead to even further increases in conventional energy use for mining and metallurgy that would be added to the costs of future low carbon technology.

They warn that there is no current indication that recycling can replace the critical metal stocks that are slowly being used. In addition, the uneven spread of mineral deposits containing the critical metals and production points could become a geopolitical issue if global security declines. China dominates the world supply of many of these resources and is responsible for 80% of global mineral refining.

The researchers suggest a pause to reconsider global Net Zero ambitions stressing the need for discussion among companies involved in mineral exploration, mining, metallurgy, manufacturing, renewable energy, recycling, and waste management.


Controversial Australian fertiliser plant to get green light by the end of the year

A gas-fed fertiliser plant on the Burrup Peninsula opposed by campaigners for the preservation of ancient rock engravings will likely be fully financed and go ahead by the end of the year after the federal government lent $220 million towards construction costs.

The US$4.2 billion ($6.5 billion) Perdaman urea plant that will process gas from Woodside’s Scarborough project will receive the funds from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility that has already lent the WA government $255 million to improve port and water facilities for the project.

Perdaman chair Vikas Rambal said the project won federal support because it offered local manufacturing of a commodity vital for Australian farmers.

“In four to eight weeks we should get financing done,” he said, with project approval expected before the end of the year and production beginning four years later.

Construction will require 2500 workers at its peak in the Pilbara where labour supply is already tight and Woodside is expanding its nearby Pluto LNG plant, which will need a similar number of workers.

Financing is likely to be a mix of debt and equity investment for the project that is currently wholly owned by the Rambal family’s private company Perdaman.

Minister for Resources and Northern Australia Madeleine King said Australia currently imported around 2.4 million tonnes a year of urea for agricultural use.

“The Perdaman project will have the capacity to reduce imported volumes and secure local farmers’ access to fertiliser,” she said.

When asked if the financing had any conditions to supply to the local market NAIF chief executive Craig Doyle said he “anticipated that a material portion of the urea produced will go to the Australian market.”

Higher gas prices due to limited supply from Russia after its invasion of Ukraine have caused global fertiliser prices to rise significantly.

Urea provides 40 per cent of Australia’s fertiliser needs according to Incitec Pivot, which agreed to buy all the plant’s output for 20 years.

The ASX-listed fertiliser and explosive manufacturer in September told investors that the plant’s large-scale cost-competitive supply would allow it to target new markets in Australia and overseas.

The Burrup Peninsula, called Murujaga by traditional owners, is home to more than one million rock engravings that are up to 40,000 years old.

Perdaman’s plant is opposed by some traditional custodians who object to the relocation of rock art for construction and the plant’s emissions that would add to the industrial pollution in the area that some scientists conclude is damaging the art.

Two weeks ago environment minister Tanya Plibersek under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act appointed an independent consultant to determine if the Murujuga engravings were under threat.

Murujuga traditional custodian Raelene Cooper said the NAIF funding was a bailout from the federal government aimed to reassure investors who are spooked about supporting a project that will remove sacred Murujuga rock art over the objections of Elders.

“The government propping up this toxic project when they have just commissioned a full cultural heritage assessment of all industry on the Burrup,” she said.

“A government that claims to support an Indigenous Voice is still refusing to listen to First Nations communities on the front line of this crisis.”

Rambal said he was not worried about the Section 10 report as the Perdaman plant was environmentally friendly with the latest technology.

The plant will initially emit 650,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases a year.

The WA government has required a gradual reduction in emissions to zero by 2050




Friday, September 30, 2022

How Government Restrictions on Domestic Drilling Drive Up Gas Prices

The term “mineral estate” refers to the ownership of minerals, including oil and natural gas, under the Earth’s surface. The federal mineral estate contains 2.46 billion acres made up of 1.76 billion acres in the Outer Continental Shelf (the ocean floors off America’s coasts) and 700 million onshore subsurface acres.

The state and private land mineral estate is around 1.5 billion acres by comparison. Even though the federal estate is almost 1 billion acres larger than the state and private mineral estate, most of our oil and natural gas comes from private and state lands. For perspective, one billion acres is about six times the size of Texas.

The United States simply doesn’t allow the energy potential from this vast federal estate to be unleashed. Historically, oil from federal lands (onshore and offshore) was consistently under 20% of total U.S. production until the late 1990s. Then, production percentages increased (primarily offshore) to over 30% in the early 2000s and reached a high point in 2009, coincident with declining production on non-federal lands in Alaska and other states.

But the numbers have come back down. According to the Department of Interior and the Energy Information Administration, federal offshore oil production was only about 15% of total U.S. oil production in 2020 and federal onshore production was only about 8%.

These low numbers are expected to get much worse for American consumers because of President Joe Biden’s moratorium that has essentially stopped most new leasing on lands and waters owned by U.S. taxpayers. They will also decline because of the increasing fees, rentals, and royalties—plus regulations—that he has imposed on oil and gas producers through executive actions and that Congress has imposed through the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.

The fact is, trying to produce energy from federal lands is unnecessarily hard, which is why the standout states that have led to the energy revolution—Texas, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania—have low federal land ownership of 1.4%, 4.2%, and 2.5%, respectively.

The impacts of who owns and manages lands are astounding. For example, from 2009 through 2013, oil production from state and private lands increased 61%, but on lands controlled by the federal government, oil production dropped 6%.

States and private landowners aren’t required by distant landlords and “green” interest groups based in Washington or Manhattan to entertain every last objection their lawyers can conjure up to stop investment projects. Instead, they negotiate the terms and conditions of leases, reclamation, and environmental protection with the knowledge that it is their land, their water, and their air that will be affected.

Apparently, states and landowners agree that mutually beneficial contracts are superior to the federal government’s Byzantine rules and regulations and all their second-guessing, armchair quarterbacking, and denials through delays.


Another way government impacts gas prices is through the permitting of pipelines necessary to transport energy in the most efficient, economic, and environmentally sound way. America has, literally, millions of miles of energy pipelines, out of sight and out of danger from surface accidents.

While not connected to the price of gasoline at the pump, it is worth noting that the natural gas system alone has over 3 million miles. Petroleum and petroleum product pipelines account for about another 225,000 miles. The permitting of these pipelines keeps surface transportation incidents with trucks and trains to a minimum, reduces environmental impacts, and is the most economic means of transport.

Denying construction permits simply forces products onto already burdened surface transportation systems, as is the case with Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline cross-border permit on his first day in office. The pipeline would have allowed nearly 1 million barrels per day of Canadian and North Dakota oil to economically be transported to refiners in the Gulf Coast, which would have induced Canada to invest more in the development of its enormous oil sands reserves.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney stated his province could provide 1 million barrels per day of additional oil to the U.S. within two years if a pipeline were allowed to be built.

Instead of draining our Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 1 million barrels per day of emergency supplies, as the Biden administration has been doing in an attempt to temporarily reduce gas prices, a pipeline would be a strategic investment with one of our closest allies and would benefit both sides of the border. It would also ensure decades of additional safe and secure energy supplies equal to 5% of our current oil use.

Signals From the Government
Often those who oppose the use of oil and gas—and who also recognize that the more of both we produce in North America, the lower their prices will be—will argue that each individual project won’t make a difference or that they will be too long in coming. That’s simply nonsense and is proven wrong by historical facts and the evidence.

In July 2008, prior to the horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing revolution that more than doubled U.S. oil production and gave us energy self-sufficiency in 2019, oil was approaching $150 per barrel under President George W. Bush. On July 14, 2008, Bush announced the repeal of a decades-old moratorium on drilling on most of the Outer Continental Shelf first put in place by his father.

Even though any oil leased, discovered, and produced wouldn’t come to market until 10 years in the future, owing to rigorous federal laws and regulations, the price of oil dropped $9.36 immediately upon his announcement, to $136 per barrel.

By the way, none of those areas that were opened for leasing have been leased to date and are still on hold pending actions by the federal government to lease them.

Oil and natural gas are purchased in markets that look to signals from the government about which way the pendulum is swinging in its attitude about future supplies. If the government wants more oil production and takes steps to make it happen domestically, prices will fall. If, on the other hand, the government seeks to regulate, legislate, and increase costs on the domestic production of energy, prices will rise.


The federal government plays a huge hand in the price families and businesses pay for their energy, including what they pay at the pump.

When it comes to energy, more energy means lower prices. Imagine if the federal government embraced increased energy production on the massive federal estate and a larger pipeline system that could more quickly, efficiently, and economically transport it to refineries and its final destinations in an environmentally friendly way. The benefits in terms of lower prices would be massive.


Energy crisis pushes German industry to the brink

German businesses are growing concerned that without an energy price cap, a wave of insolvencies could wash over the country in coming weeks and disrupt the supply chains serving Germany’s largest industrial sectors.

Starved of the abundant Russian energy that long fired the nation’s industrial engine, German businesses have already been curtailing production and halting investments. Business and consumer confidence is tumbling, approaching the lows reached during the 2008 global financial crisis. Germany’s government is now drawing up plans to cap the price of electricity and gas, officials said this week, acting in case a similar proposal by the European Union isn’t enacted swiftly.

Long Europe’s growth engine and its manufacturing nerve center, Germany’s economy has become one of the most vulnerable on the continent. It is likely to grow by just 1.2% this year and shrink by 0.7% next year, by far the worst performance among major industrial economies, according to a forecast published this week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based think tank. Economists at Deutsche Bank expect a 3.5% contraction next year, driven by shrinking private consumption, investment and net exports.

Four heavyweight German think tanks slashed their growth forecasts for the German economy on Thursday, blaming the energy crisis. They now expect an economic contraction of 0.4% next year, after forecasting growth of 3.1% last spring, according to a twice-yearly report prepared for the federal government. While gas shortages should ease somewhat over time, prices are likely to remain well above the precrisis level, the report warned. “This means a permanent loss of prosperity for Germany.”

More than half of German small and midsize companies now worry that the energy crisis could put them out of business, up from 42% last month, according to a survey published Thursday by the Federal Association of Medium-Sized Businesses, a trade group. “The situation is growing more threatening from day to day,” said the group’s chairman, Markus Jerger.

After initially resisting the decision, Germany’s government is now drawing up plans to cap the price of electricity and gas, officials said this week. Business lobbies have warned that an insolvency wave could be just weeks away and that it could start a chain reaction of business failures. Volkswagen AG, Germany’s flagship car maker, said last week it was concerned about its supply chain because of possible gas shortages this winter.

“I’m very worried... Affordable energy is the foundation of the entire German industry,” says Max Jankowsky, chief executive of GL Giesserei Loessnitz GmbH, a 173-year-old foundry in the east German state of Saxony.

The company sits at the heart of Germany’s large auto industry, which employs around 800,000 people and exports about three-quarters of what it produces. Its clients include BMW AG, Daimler AG and Volkswagen.

Mr. Jankowsky used to pay 100 euros, equivalent to $96, each time he switched on his gas-powered industrial furnace which melts metal to produce the machines that mold car bodies. Today, it costs Mr. Jankowsky about €3,000 each time, a 30-fold increase. To save money, he now turns on the furnace twice a week instead of three times.

Mr. Jankowsky expects his annual electricity bill to increase by €2 million next year, an enormous burden for a family-run firm with €20 million in annual sales. After his previous contract ran out, he started buying gas on the spot market, paying vastly higher prices.

“Next year will be decisive. Supply chains could be reoriented toward countries with cheaper energy,” Mr. Jankowsky says. His customers are currently accepting large price increases, but he expects demand to decline next year.

Even so, he is skeptical of the German government’s plans to subsidize energy use, which he worries will keep prices high while burdening future generations.

“The economy needs to work without subsidies, we always complained about those in China,” he says. He wants the government to produce a road map for guaranteeing supplies of affordable energy. “I don’t see a concept in the federal government,” he says.

One in 10 German auto companies have reduced production as a result of high energy costs, and another third are considering doing so, according to a survey this month by the German Association of the Automotive Industry, a trade group. More than half of companies have canceled or postponed planned investments and nearly a quarter want to shift investments overseas, the trade group says.

Output in Germany’s manufacturing industry is likely to decline by 2.5% this year and by roughly 5% next year, according to Deutsche Bank analysts. Exports, a cornerstone of the country’s recent prosperity, are languishing below prepandemic levels after adjusting for inflation.

With energy prices likely to remain structurally high, only some of the German production facilities priced out of the market are likely to come back on stream, the analysts said. That is likely to reduce the country’s long-term growth potential, which is already under pressure from an aging workforce.

“The current energy-cost and thus inflation crisis is not only a cyclical phenomenon but has a major structural component as well, requiring significant government intervention to prevent serious medium- and long-term damage to Germany’s economic prospects,” says Timo Klein, an economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

In addition to sparking an energy crisis, Russia’s war in Ukraine has shaken confidence in a German export model that has prospered by forging deep links with autocratic regimes with fast-growing economies, especially China.

Government officials are now concerned that Germany’s economic dependence on China—it is the country’s largest trade partner and the biggest single market for many German companies—would translate into an even bigger shock for the German economy should Beijing close ranks with Moscow against the West.

“If I see the disruption of the global economy caused by the war of two economic dwarfs, Russia and Ukraine, I am afraid what a [tussle] between China and Taiwan and the U.S…. would cause to the global economy,” says Oliver Betz, managing director of systec Automotive GmbH, an auto supplier based near Munich.

Mr. Betz has roughly 160 staff in China and makes about half of his annual global sales there—about 250 million yuan, equivalent to $35 million. He says he wouldn’t invest in another company in China due to heightened geopolitical risks. Instead he is trying to expand in new markets including India and the U.S. He thinks the transition will be difficult because the markets are very different.

“It will take a long time to substantially replace our Chinese business,” Mr. Betz says.

For now, German unemployment remains low, but that could change as high inflation erodes household spending, economists say. The nation’s unemployment rate edged up to 5.5% in August, largely due to an influx of Ukrainian refugees, according to the federal labor agency. German businesses are likely to furlough some two million staff over the coming months as the economy shrinks, according to Deutsche Bank.

Borrowing costs are rising as the European Central Bank aggressively raises interest rates to combat high inflation.

Even so, Germany’s inflation rate is likely to decline only slightly next year, to 7.6%, still more than double the expected rate in the U.S., according to the OECD.

Thilmann Brot GmbH, which operates 20 bakeries in western Germany, filed for insolvency in mid-September. The family business was unable to pass on increased energy and raw-material costs as customers switched to cheaper alternatives, according to Jens Lieser, the company’s provisional insolvency administrator.


British Labour’s Green Energy Plan Is To Double Down On More Unreliables

The key policy unveiled by Labour is to replace one unrealistic objective with another. Boris Johnson’s aim to have a carbon-free energy grid by 2035 has been brought forward to 2030 by Sir Keir Starmer.

This is to be achieved by quadrupling offshore wind farms, doubling the number on land, and tripling the production of solar power, all within six years, assuming an election in 2024 that Labour wins.

Sir Keir said this would deliver a new era of economic growth and permanently lower energy bills by turning the UK into a green “superpower”.

Countries like China and India have committed to net zero but not for decades – arguing their economies are at different stages from the West.

America has lowered its emissions [thanks to natural gas] and is working on many of the new ‘green’ technologies, but has a target of 2050.

For as long as the biggest emitters are still pumping out CO2, the UK’s contribution is minuscule.

Sir Keir said the aim was to make the UK self-sufficient in electricity by the end of the decade but this is simply not possible.

We will need to continue importing gas for electricity long after 2030 because renewables will not produce enough energy, not least on windless, cloudy days.

Moreover, the way the energy market is currently constructed, electricity from renewables is priced at the same high level as gas.

This needs to change.

Labour’s plan is essentially to make the country more dependent on imported gas, not less, certainly in the medium term.

Using our own resources, including shale, is a better approach.


Europeans increasingly burning trees for energy

European consumers and businesses are increasingly turning to biomass energy sources, including wood-derived fuels for heating and cooling, as the energy crisis continues to wreak havoc across the continent.

The shift to biomass energy, which already accounts for the majority of renewable energy generated in the European Union (EU), has come as the Ukraine crisis disrupts energy supplies and alternate forms of energy production fall short, according to Bioenergy Europe, a leading industry group based in Belgium.

The group said Europe's biomass energy is largely sourced domestically while fossil fuels and green energy technologies are mainly imported.

Amid the crisis, Europeans have been forced to take drastic measures to conserve energy and keep bills low while governments have imposed rationing rules and introduced relief programs.

"During this period of increasing uncertainty due to the war in Ukraine and the ongoing crisis which highlights the EU’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels, bioenergy stands as a clear counterpoint," Maija Lepistö, a spokesperson for Bioenergy Europe, told FOX Business. "Over 96% of the biomass used for bioenergy is being produced domestically within the EU and the rest coming from trusted streams."

Prior to the current crisis, biomass energy accounted for 57.4% of total renewable energy production and nearly 12% of total energy consumed in the EU. Forestry products — such as logging residues, wood-processing residues, fuel wood and wood pellets — are the bloc's main source of biomass for energy, according to the EU's Joint Research Center.

Lepistö said more consumers are turning to biomass energy thanks to it being a "local and affordable" alternative to traditional sources of energy.

"The current energy crisis in Europe has not placed the supply of biomass raw material at risk," she told FOX Business. "Unlike fossil fuels with their high import rates and other renewables supplying their technology from outside the EU, biomass has the benefit of being locally sourced, produced and dispatched as well as supply of the necessary equipment."

"Just as with other markets, the ongoing war is affecting the bioenergy sector," she added. "However, the EU’s internal market can continue supplying bioenergy to the end users, and more businesses and citizens are turning to this renewable, local and affordable solution, which has more potential to grow and (reinforce) the EU’s green goals."

In 2021, the EU consumed a whopping 23.1 million metric tons (MMT) of wood pellets, a year-over-year increase that can be attributed to increased German residential use and an uptick of co-firing of wood with coal in power plants in the Netherlands, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report.

The report said demand in 2022 is projected to increase by another 1.2 MMT in 2022 due to even greater expansion in residential markets and increasing prices of fossil fuels.

Overall, the vast majority of biomass energy power generation in the EU is generated by the industrial sector at combined heat and power plants, Lepistö added. The remainder produces electricity and transportation fuels.




Thursday, September 29, 2022

Climate Hysteria: A Mass Delusion to Demonize Carbon Dioxide

Climate hysterics like to throw around the world “denier” to castigate those who don’t get with the green agenda. The term is deliberately intended to echo the phrase “Holocaust denier” to those anti-Semites who like to insist that the Holocaust never happened. While the comparison is obscene, it’s certainly true that the Holocaust, like the climate agenda, have something in common: They both reflect a blind fanaticism untethered to actual facts.

Climate hysterics demonize carbon dioxide (CO2) much as Hitler stereotyped Jews. They then demonize their critics as “Holocaust deniers” because the psychological link is to demonize critics of the anthropogenic theory as if they were Jew-haters. However, the term “climate deniers” outside the context of Holocaust denial makes no sense. No rational person would deny that this planet has an atmosphere, weather, and climate. But honestly, it is climate hysterics who hate their critics, seeing them as “evil,” greedy, hydrocarbon-burning capitalists willing to make Earth’s climate unbearably hot and dangerous for all living things.

The Holocaust was a past, documented event. In contrast, the contention that the world might end because we burn hydrocarbon fuels that emit CO2 is a theory based on debatable simulations of future climate possibilities. The hard reality is that radical leftists, like Hitler’s “National Socialist” Nazis, will kill tens of millions to assuage their fears. Using the “denier” language to tar those who do not take a knee to concede to this global warming, climate change irrational fear is a monumental, inexcusable insult to the memory of the six million Jews pointlessly murdered in the insane racial hysteria of the Shoah.

The demonization of CO2 depends on the asserted certainty that burning hydrocarbon fuels that emit CO2, a greenhouse gas that is a trace molecule, present in approximately 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, will generate existential climate change catastrophes. The decarbonization movement would be dead in the water except for the existential fear climate hysterics manufacture over supposed adverse anthropogenic CO2 consequences touted as making Earth uninhabitable for humans.

Ironically, Nazis and climate hysterics understand that the success of prejudicial stereotyping depends on the availability of a charismatic demagogue, a Hitler, capable of triggering irrational fear of the perceived evil subgroup. In other words, the psychology of prejudicial stereotyping depends upon the availability of an Al Gore or Greta Thunberg willing to create permanent fear over myriad existential climate disasters that may never happen.

As astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon has pointed out repeatedly, climate hysterics are “true believers,” impervious to experiential refutation. On August 19, 2022, in a speech delivered to the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness at their annual convention, Dr. Soon showed extensive evidence that the United Nations’ predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming have been wrong for the past 50 years.

U.N. predictions that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming will cause sea levels to rise, wiping nations off the face of the earth, are nothing but fearmongering. But, as Dr. Soon documented, when U.N. predictions fail to materialize, the U.N. merely extends the inevitable happening of the future climate change catastrophe to an anticipated date in the future.

Lowering the Holocaust to the level of a climate debate irreparably demeans what was the most heinous genocidal catastrophe ever perpetrated by human beings against fellow human beings. Having said that, there is a homicidal reality to the neo-Marxist Green New Deal mass delusion, something apparent in today as EU governments, deprived of Russian gas, scramble to forestall the real, existential threat of businesses shutting down and citizens freezing in a long, cold European winter.

In his classic 1954 treatise, The Nature of Prejudice, Harvard psychologist Gordon W. Allport described the psychology of prejudicial stereotyping behind Hitler’s genocidal mania demonizing Jews. That same theory explains why the green movement is intolerant today. The psychology of stereotyping creates generalizations; that is, “overcategorizations,” that become prejudices when ideological convictions “are not reversible when exposed to new knowledge.”

Allport defined ethnic prejudice as follows:

Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group.

Allport further noted that “intense prejudicial antipathies” are likely to result in “vigorously hostile action.” Allport elaborated “extermination” as the most extreme prejudicial form of violent actions in terms of the Holocaust.

Extermination. Lynchings, pogroms, massacres, and the Hitlerian program of genocide mark the ultimate degree of violent expression of prejudice.

Another very important book to emerge regarding the madness of the Nazi era was Eric Hoffer’s 1951 book, The True Believer. In it, he explained that blind adherence to doctrinal ideology is key to the fanaticism necessary to create a successful social or political movement. Thus, wrote Hoffer, active mass movements strive “to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world.”

Hoffer further pointed out that the facts on which a true believer bases his conclusions “must not be derived from his [i.e., a true believer’s] experience or observation.” For true believers, Hoffer insisted, “the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine, and there is no truth nor certitude outside it.” “To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs.”

Hoffer concluded his comments on the importance of ideology (which he calls doctrine) for true believers by commenting in that the fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia. This kind of militant refuses to see “with his own eyes the cruel misery inside the Soviet promised land.”

The same holds true for progressives who transform a supposedly scientific argument about CO2 emissions into their political fight against capitalism. The Green New Deal movement insists we must move entirely to solar energy and wind power because these are not hydrocarbon fuels. The Green New Deal assumes that eliminating the use of hydrocarbon fuels, the energy that fuels capitalism, by moving to the less powerful and less reliable solar energy and wind power is essential to a future committed to social justice.

In a similar vein, in 1965, Herbert Marcuse of the neo-Marxist Frankfurt School published an essay entitled “Repressive Tolerance.” In that essay, Marcuse argued for “liberating tolerance,” a redefinition of “tolerance” that requires the censoring of policies, attitudes, opinions, etc., that are designed to reinforce the dominant repressive and alienating nature of advanced industrial societies like the United States. More simply, Marcuse explained that “liberating tolerance” would mean “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.” Marcuse left no doubt that his argument for liberating tolerance was central to his goal of negating capitalism to destroy advanced industrial society.

There’s an irony to all this: On the one hand, it’s obscene for climate fanatics to tar their opponents as “deniers” in the same the term is used for people to deny the Holocaust. The first is a well-document historic event, while the second is a highly speculative theory based upon inadequate computer models made to predict future complex climate events. However, the common denominator is that both the Holocaust and the climate movement arise from the same form of rigid, fact-free fanaticism common to all true believers.


As war on gas pipelines escalates, Britain faces national security crisis

As Gazprom warned that the last remaining gas supply to western Europe is at risk of shutdown and gas pipelines are being blown up, Net Zero Watch has written to Liz Truss and Sir Kir Starmer, calling on both leaders to declare an energy emergency, on national security grounds.

In a letter to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Net Zero Watch director Dr Benny Peiser has warned that the sabotage of three Nord Stream gas pipelines in the last 24 hours has brutally revealed how Britain’s energy system and its entire economic and societal stability is exposed to grave external threats.

Dr Peiser writes:

"There is now a serious and growing risk to Britain’s national security due to the extreme vulnerability of the gas pipeline from Norway which provides a third of UK gas supplies.

It is vital that you understand that a similar attack on the Norwegian gas pipeline would, on its own, completely cripple the UK economy. This extreme vulnerability must be fixed as a matter of national priority, and must take precedence over all other considerations.

From a national security perspective, the urgent need is for immediate policy changes that significantly and swiftly increase reliable domestic sources of energy, which means gas and coal, without which the grid and the economy cannot function. I set out below key steps that must be taken.

It is also vital that you understand that no responsible government and opposition can accept this national security risk without taking swift and effect action.”

Emergency agenda

Unconventional gas

All obstacles to the development of unconventional fossil fuel resources in the UK must be removed.

In particular:

* Replace the current traffic light system, based on seismicity, with BS5228-2, the ground-acceleration standard applied to other industries.

* Fossil fuel extraction to be categorised as Nationally Significant Infrastructure under the terms of the Planning Act. This should include projects in Scotland.

* Planning applications for shale wells must cover drilling pads rather than individual wells.

* Get coalbed methane and coal seam gasification projects going again, overruling Holyrood if necessary


* Suspend the Climate Change Act

* Suspend pollution controls on thermal power, thus allowing dual-fuel use of gas-fired plant and the development of ultrasupercritical coal-fired power stations.

* Several coal and nuclear stations to close in next few years. Critical risk that these are not maintained in the meantime. Give them long-term agreements to ensure they remain on the grid and are maintained.


Dr Benny Peiser
Director, Net Zero Watch
m: 07553 361717


Liz Truss will fail without a credible energy plan

Net Zero Watch has said that negative market reactions to the Government’s mini-budget show that domestic and international investors are highly sceptical about what appears to be half-baked policy proposals.

Investors can see that hardly anything is being done to address the underlying reasons for Britain’s economic and energy cost crisis.

Tax cuts in conjunction with astronomical and indeterminate handouts to energy suppliers announced by the Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng last week have alarmed financiers because they shift the energy cost burden onto the UK’s debt mountain and future generations. As a result, the pound has crashed against the dollar and market reactions have been highly critical.

Net Zero Watch director, Dr Benny Peiser has warned that the country faces years of inflation and in all likelihood a major economic depression unless the government announces radical energy policy reforms:

"The economy looks likely to tank and suffer for years to come because the Government refuses to abandon its suicidal Net Zero targets which are effectively preventing solutions to the catastrophic energy crisis."

Net Zero Watch recently published a plan to rapidly reduce the energy cost burden and put the economy back on a stable footing, but Dr Peiser has warned that time for action is running short.

"Unless the Government introduces a credible plan to bring down the cost of energy significantly and in the short term there is simply no chance for any economic growth plans. Liz Truss and her ministers have to chose between saving the economy and saving Net Zero. There simply isn’t a third way.'

Gordon Hughes and Andrew Montford: Fixing the energy price crisis (pdf)


Dr Benny Peiser
Director, Net Zero Watch
m: 07553 361717


Australia: A major overhaul of Queensland’s energy sector will involve construction of the ‘world’s biggest’ pumped hydro project

This is nonsense. For pumped hydro you need TWO dams, at astronomical cost. Where is the money going to come from? Will it reduce the funding for hospitals, police and pensioners? Realistic cost estimates and realistic statements about how other spending will be affected are needed. There is no sign of either.

When there are so many other needs for funding (ambulancees, housing etc.) already crying out, this proposal is verging on criminal. And for what? To replace s perfectly good electricity supply that we have already. It will buy a few votes from Greenies, that is all

A major overhaul of Queensland’s energy sector will cost $62bn over 13 years and involve construction of the “world’s biggest” pumped hydroelectric power plant project, ending the “reliance” on coal in the state’s publicly owned power plants by 2035.

The goals of the Queensland Energy Plan include hitting a new, higher renewable energy target of 70 per cent by 2032, though the state’s emissions reductions target of 30 per cent below 2005 baseline levels will not change.

The targets will be legislated.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk released the state’s long-awaited 10-year Queensland Energy Plan at her annual state of the state address on Wednesday afternoon, saying the “race was now on” to secure “clean energy supply chains”.

“We must invest now, not just for our climate,” she said. “We must address this issue at the same time we focus on new job opportunities to bring everyone along with the clean energy industrial revolution at our doorstep.”

Ms Palaszczuk confirmed Queensland’s plan was to get 70 per cent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2032, and 80 per cent by 2035.

Natural renewable resources are energy sources with an endless supply so they can be continuously replenished. Some examples of renewable resources include the wind, sun, geothermal heat and water.

Part of the plan will include building two new pumped hydroelectric plants — one west of Mackay and the other at Borumba Dam by 2035.

There will be a new “SuperGrid” built to connect solar, wind, battery and hydrogen generators across the state.

“The super grid brings together all of the elements in the electricity system with the poles and wires that provide Queenslanders with clean, reliable and affordable power for generations,” Ms Palaszczuk said.

“That super grid delivers around 1500 kilometres of transmission lines from Brisbane up to North Queensland and out west to Hughenden.”

Publicly owned coal fired power plants, which make up the majority of the state’s coal fired assets, would be “converted” to clean energy hubs from 2027. And their “reliance” on coal would be stopped by 2035.

Ms Palaszczuk said this would be “done in a measured way”. “We won’t convert coal power stations until there is replacement firmed generation,” she said. “We will keep our coal fired power stations as back up capacity until replacement pumped hydro energy storage is operational. “We will be able to turn the stations back on if something goes wrong.”

The state will also build a “hydrogen gas ready turbine”.

The energy plan will cost an estimated $62bn between now and 2035, with the funds to be spread across state and federal governments and the private sector.

“By 2035 Queensland … will have no regular reliance on coal and be at 80 per cent renewable energy,” Ms Palaszczuk said. “That’s because we will have more pumped hydro energy storage than the rest of Australia combined. “Today is about being bold with an energy and jobs plan that has tangible aims and palpable outcomes.”

The latest data shows Queensland’s energy mix in 2021/22 was 21.4 per cent renewable, up from 19.6 per cent between August 2020 and July 2021.

The state government has been ramping up its energy-related announcements in the last week, with Ms Palaszczuk travelling out to South Burnett on Monday to reveal a $780m commitment to building Australia’s largest publicly owned wind farm. The Tarong West Wind Farm in the South Burnett would create enough electricity to power up to 230,000 homes.

At a press conference this morning, Energy Minister Mick de Brenni said it would power “the size of the Gold Coast”, and would be the “equivalent of taking 230,000 cars off the road”.

He said existing cattle farmers located near the wind farm would be able to operate as usual.

The project will include up to 150 turbines and generate 500MW, with 200 jobs created during the construction phase and 15 ongoing roles when the farm up and running.

Earlier, the Greens said Queensland risked being “laughed out of the room” over its climate policies, with the party urging the Palaszczuk government to accelerate the closure of coal-fired stations and adopt a transition plan for the workforce.

Greens MP Michael Berkman said Queensland risked breaching its Paris Agreement unless it includes the closure of the state’s power stations by 2030.




European electricity grid hurtling towards disaster, Swiss commodities expert warns

A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the European electricity grid is hurtling towards disaster, with its constituent nations closing reliable nuclear and fossil-fuelled power stations and hoping that interconnectors will make up the deficit.

According to the paper’s author, Alexander Stahel, a Swiss-based commodities expert, the European grid has relied on French and German power surpluses for many years. However, with nuclear power in both countries being wound down and likely to soon become net power importers, and with fierce international competition for scarce gas supplies, the whole continent is now left hoping for Scandinavian hydro power and occasional surpluses of UK wind to save them.

According to Stahel, the numbers just don’t add up, and he warns that restrictions on fossil fuel investment are making things dramatically worse.

“Fossil fuels are currently vital for keeping the lights on, but we are undermining the industry’s viability. It needs US$300 billion of re-investment every year, for oil and gas alone, just to maintain current production levels.

"However, convinced by policymakers that investments in production will become ‘stranded’, it is not even investing half this amount.”

Stahel says that Europe must simply accept that its decarbonisation targets are not achievable.

Alexander Stahel: “The Crisis of the European Energy System” (pdf)


Adverse Energy Taxes in the Inflation Reduction Act

The process of political meddling in energy markets is endless, an eternal truth that will not prove different for the energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. Most public attention has been directed at the massive subsidies and favoritism directed at unconventional electricity — wind and solar power in particular — and electric vehicles, rather than the tax provisions, less prominent but deeply problematic.

Both sets of policies expand the effort to increase the use of uncompetitive energy expensive, unreliable, and environmentally destructive in place of conventional energyproven, reliable, efficient, and with environmental effects that have been addressed effectively by decades of regulation authorized by past legislation. Such a forced turn toward uncompetitive energy will continue to engender huge adverse effects with few benefits, a reality that policymakers in Europe, California, and elsewhere now have been forced to confront.

The tax provisions of the IRA have received less attention, but are likely to prove equally perverse. First, there is a reinstatement of the Hazardous Substance Superfund Financing tax (section 13601) on crude oil and petroleum products, the previous imposition of which ended in 1995. Put aside the fact that it is not the fossil energy producers or their customers who are responsible for pollution and cleanup problems at the Superfund sites; nor are they to blame for the massive mismanagement of the program over four decades. This tax — 16.4 cents per barrel — will cost energy producers about $1.2 billion per year, an outcome not consistent with the need to expand the availability of reliable energy.

Second, the IRA imposes two new taxes on methane emissions from crude oil and natural gas production. Section 60113 imposes per-metric ton fees ($900 in 2024, rising to $1500 in 2026) for methane emissions exceeding 0.2 percent of natural gas sold from a facility or 10 metric tons of methane per million barrels of oil produced. Section 50263 imposes the (new, higher) royalty rate for natural gas produced from future leases on federal land or the outer continental shelf on all such gas, even that lost because of necessary venting or flaring, with a few exceptions.

Put aside the reality that fossil producers have powerful incentives to minimize losses of natural gas that otherwise could be sold. The central justification for the tax on methane emissions is “climate” policy. U.S. methane emissions are 11 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (on a CO2 equivalent basis). Were all U.S. methane emissions — not merely those from oil and gas production — reduced to zero, the global temperature reduction by 2100, using the Environmental Protection Agency climate model, would be 0.015 degrees C, an effect that would not be measurable in that the standard deviation of the surface temperature record is 0.11 degrees C.

Accordingly, the taxes on methane emissions cannot satisfy any plausible benefit/cost test. They are little more than a money grab, with little economic or environmental justification. Moreover, they create perverse political incentives: More methane emissions yield more revenue for the federal government, and so provide a disincentive to reform permitting and other policies so as to facilitate the improvement and modernization of the energy infrastructure, and thus reduce emissions.

Finally, section 50262 increases the royalty rate for oil and gas leases on federal lands and the OCS from 12.5 percent to 16.67 percent, increases the oil and gas minimum acceptable bid from $2 per acre to $10 per acre, and increases fossil fuel rental rates for reinstated oil and gas leases to 20 percent rather than 16.67 percent.

Notwithstanding Beltway rhetoric about “ensur[ing a] fair return for the American taxpayer,” these cost increases will have the opposite effect, by reducing the amount that the fossil producers will be willing to bid initially for the leases. This means that the net effect of the increase in the royalty rate and the obvious attendant decline in the initial bids is a shift of risk from the fossil producers onto the taxpayers, because the initial bids are certain, while the future royalty payments will be determined by future fossil energy prices and other conditions that are subject to substantial uncertainty.

Moreover, the royalty payments are analogous to an excise tax on fossil energy production, while the initial bid is analogous to a lump-sum tax that does not affect production decisions once the bidder obtains a lease. Accordingly, the combination of the increase in the royalty rate and the decline in the initial bids will have the effect of reducing fossil production from the leases that actually are granted, an outcome inconsistent with the goals of a rational energy policy and with the interests of taxpayers.

There simply is no rationale for these tax provisions that can withstand scrutiny. They will reduce the production of conventional energy, which is reliable, concentrated per unit of weight, and complementary with efficient capital investment. They will increase energy costs and reduce economic growth and national wealth, even as they yield no benefits in terms of environmental improvement. Let us hope that a future Congress is led to repeal them.


Experts question environmental and economic value of wind power

“The biggest failure of wind energy, oddly enough, is environmental.”

Wind farms continue to pop up like mushrooms across Michigan’s landscape, and with them, plenty of backlash from energy, economic and environmental public policy experts.

Michigan ranks 15th for total wind generation nationwide, according to a 2021 study released by, which was updated last May. The study reports wind provides 8% of the total electricity consumed by the nation’s homes, government entities and businesses, while contributing 7% to Michigan’s electricity grid.

While proponents tout the environmental benefits of wind over other energy sources, it typically takes 18 months after its full installation before a turbine truly can be said to “have paid off its carbon debt,” according to Kevon Martis, a certified land use planner and zoning administrator for Lenawee County’s Deerfield Township.

Martis explained to The Center Square that the manufacturing and transportation of turbines to their destination typically requires overseas shipping to U.S. ports, followed by over-the-road transport requiring several diesel-fueled 18-wheel semi-trucks per turbine.

“The biggest failure of wind energy, oddly enough, is environmental,” Martis told The Center Square. “Not only do low-energy density devices like wind turbines have an outsized impact on the landscape due to the sheer mass of the machines and the quantity required, wind energy is a very expensive means of CO2 avoidance,” he said.

Martis referenced a study conducted by grid operator MISO “with respect to the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which showed that wind energy reduces CO2 emissions at a cost of $237/ton while the Obama administration itself only valued the social cost of carbon at roughly $40/ton.”

He also referenced a paper released by the center-left Brookings Institute showing wind energy and solar are not the low-cost means of avoiding CO2.

“Replacing coal with natural gas and nuclear is far cheaper,” Martis said. “So it leaves a serious policy question: If you have $1 billion of ratepayer money to play with, do you want to avoid one unit of CO2 with wind or six or eight units by fuel switching from coal to natural gas or building nuclear power? In fact, the reason the U.S. leads the Western world in CO2 reduction in the electricity sector is precisely because of fuel switching rather than renewable energy development.”

A study released this week reveals that wind turbines pose their own set of reliability and economic problems.

“The High Cost of 100 Percent Carbon-Free Electricity by 2040” details issues related to the complete adoption of carbon-free, renewable energy provided by wind and solar technologies.

The Minnesota-based Center for the American Experiment study was authored by CAE’s Policy Fellow Isaac Orr, Policy Analyst Mitchell Rolling, and Economist John Phelan. Although the study is specifically focused on Minnesota, Orr told The Center Square its conclusions also apply to other states such as Michigan that have adopted carbon-free energy mandates. Michigan-based Consumers Energy, for example, is proposing to generate 63% of all the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2040.

“Our report found that attempting to power the state of Minnesota using primarily wind, solar, and battery storage would cost a staggering $313 billion through 2050 and cause blackouts in two of the three years we investigated,” Orr said. “Prices would rise, reliability would fall; in essence, it would be the worst of both worlds. This proposal is gambling with the electric grid, which is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do.”

The CAE writers also conclude the state’s renewable mandates would result in the loss of 79,000 jobs and reduce Minnesota’s state gross domestic product by more than $13 billion annually.

“Renewable advocates often claim that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, but our analysis found the true cost of meeting electricity demand with wind and solar was $272 per megawatt hour (MWh) and $472/MWh, respectively, when the cost of battery storage and overbuilding and curtailment costs were factored in,” Orr said. “This means wind turbines and solar panels are much more expensive than the power plants they replace.”

The additional costs of transmission, property taxes, load balancing and other embedded costs would drive wind-generated energy above $270 per MWh, according to the report.

“One of the key failures of the push to so-called green energy is a refusal to accurately account for any associated negatives of using wind or solar,” Mackinac Center for Public Policy Environmental Policy Director Jason Hayes told The Center Square. “While renewable energy advocates strive to track even the most minuscule costs associated with fossil fuels or nuclear energy, they appear to happily ignore many of their benefits, such as being a reliable and affordable source of electricity and transportation fuels.”

Hayes said renewable advocates focus on “claims of reduced emissions from wind and solar, while ignoring or downplaying the growing string of human rights and supply chain issues associated with transition minerals, or how they are eating up ever more acres of land,” he said. “Having a full accounting for the emissions associated with wind and solar is every bit as important as accounting for the emissions from fossil fuels. That full accounting would likely change more than a few minds on the actual value of renewables.”


Tyrannical pseudo-science

As if we haven’t had enough of politicians in our faces in the Peoples Republic of Victoria in the last two and a half years, we now have Dr Monique Ryan in the Federal Parliament courtesy of the Woke and bespoke voters of Kooyong. Dr Ryan is a neurologist and says she is a woman of science; therefore (presumably) she cannot be questioned on her views on Climate Change, after all, she is a scientist and the science is settled

I live outside Melbourne on the edge of the western plains in a tiny town called Toolern Vale, where there are more horses and rabbits than humans. We are 70km from Ballarat and the westerly wind in winter blowing from Ballarat is infinitely colder than any mother-in-law’s kiss. We are very much aware of, and exposed to, climate change, but out here we call it the weather.

I have had a gutful of being hammered with the new climate religion which appears to have little basis in science. Its adherents are a group of virtue-signalling, privileged elites who, in their delirium and zealotry, use selective climate data and extreme language to spread the word via propaganda and are brainwashing our young, infecting our Parliament, and slowly destroying our prosperity.

At present I am paying at least four times the amount I should for electricity despite having a bank of solar panels. In the near future, I can look forward to a completely random electricity supply which will interrupt my ability to earn an income and put me in third-world living conditions. My taxes are propping up the renewables market thereby deliberately sabotaging the supply of essential fossil fuels.

Chris Bowen is hell-bent on forcing me to sell my V8 ute, replacing it with a not-fit-for-purpose EV and, to top it off, wind turbine transmission lines are coming through my neighbour’s property. I hear our Prime Minister thinks the changing climate is a threat to the ‘survival of our way of life’; well Prime Minister, it is not the weather that threatens my way of life, it is your bizarre, delusional, religion-based reaction to it.

News from the UK and Europe informs us that their citizens are soon to enter the winter from hell – not because of the weather per se, but because of a shortage of baseload power and the available power they do have is astronomically expensive. Many people will be unable to afford both food and heating and people will die. Already governments are telling their citizens how they can use the available power.

Is Dr Ryan aware of this situation? If so, does she think the science differs in the southern hemisphere, or that we live in a parallel universe?

Not being a woman of science, I will put it in layman’s terms. Let’s say you walk into a pub and sit down at the bar; the bloke next to you orders a drink, he takes a swig of it and falls to the floor – dead. Would you turn to the barmaid and say I’ll have what he’s having, but make it a double? That is what Dr Ryan wants you to do; despite having already seen the first season of the blockbuster series European Dream – No Electricity, No Industry, No Future, she appears to want us to follow the UK and Europe over the edge of a cliff.

Make no mistake, this is not about saving anything – this is about an entire class of privileged zealots in wealthy seats forcing their religious beliefs onto us. If you question them and ask for a reliable energy source, you’ll be cast out and called a heretic. If you object to following UK/Europe into third-world chaos and misery you’ll be told the science is settled.

In the spirit of science Dr Ryan, I propose an experiment.

The electorate of Kooyong goes off the grid. Wind turbine transmission lines will be run along the Yarra River in Kew and Hawthorn. Solar farms will be built in the parks and golf courses of Balwyn, Canterbury, Deepdene, Hawthorn, Mont Albert, Camberwell, Glen Iris, Kew, and Surrey Hills. The electorate is to function solely on wind and solar-generated power. Limited battery storage will be permitted – baseline domestic batteries, the type the government would install in public housing. In my electorate of Hawk – I volunteer to go off the grid, no renewables, no batteries and I will have a small modular reactor installed in my back paddock.

It’s about time Dr Ryan and the rest of these self-righteous, puffed-up toffs made a real sacrifice on the altar of Climate Change. Money means nothing to the virtue-signalling green electorates, so they should feel some Climate Change piousness by turning their green spaces into wastelands of solar panels and transmission lines; they should live with the result of relying on 100 percent renewables.

Dr Ryan, charity starts at home, lead by example; get out of my face and out of my environment.