Net zero is dying a slow death
Governments are coming to regret net-zero carbon-emissions pledges, as their cost and impracticality come into view, but politicians still hate to admit it. The latest quiet escape plan arrived Thursday in the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister Rishi Sunak published a raft of net-zero measures aimed at rebooting Britain’s green agenda.
The optimistic take is that the plans mark another admission that net-zero is unlikely to happen in Britain. The policy emphasis is on carbon-capture technology, to which Mr. Sunak’s administration previously announced it will devote £20 billion. Mr. Sunak is pushing hard on carbon capture because he appears not to want to do anything else.
The plan includes little new money beyond what his administration has previously announced. There are few new plans beyond previous duds such as a promise to convert households to heat pumps from gas-fired central heating. Tellingly, Thursday’s plan elicited few objections from net-zero skeptics in Mr. Sunak’s Conservative Party.
The government is also stepping back from the phaseout of internal-combustion cars. Their sale is due to be banned by 2035. But the U.K. now will introduce a system of credits to let some auto makers buy the right to make more internal-combustion cars than they would have been allowed during the phaseout. Britain could hardly do otherwise after the European Union recently scaled back its EV mandate.
This fiasco is happening as green aspirations and economic realities collide at high speed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The war, which disrupted Europe’s imports of Russian natural gas and caused global prices to spike, exposed the costs and inadequacy of wind and solar power as replacements for fossil fuels.
As a mandatory shift to electric vehicles approaches, it’s becoming clear that battery technologies don’t exist to make EVs a replacement for internal-combustion engines. The public is also noticing the shortcomings of proposed alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Nor are voters likely to be enthusiastic about having to pay higher taxes on domestic natural gas intended to steer them toward electricity.
Mr. Sunak is abandoning net zero in deed if not in word. Yet there’s a cost for what is becoming a global effort to escape net zero through the back door rather than admitting the plans won’t work. Witness the U.K.’s Rube Goldberg mechanism for keeping on the market the internal-combustion cars consumers want, or the subsidies for ineffective carbon capture. Both are set to become new corporate welfare on top of other green handouts.
Net zero is dying a slow death as voters and politicians realize its folly. Maybe someone will eventually admit it out loud.
**************************************************
IRS Says Major Changes Are Coming to Electric Vehicle Tax Credits Next Month
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced Friday that it would propose rules that would make it more difficult for a number of new electric vehicles (EVs) to qualify for tax breaks, according to a news release.
Starting April 18, the IRS will enforce a domestic sourcing requirement for minerals and components used in EV batteries, the agency said. Analysts say that a number of new EVs won’t qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit of $7,500 that was implemented under the Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year.
The act “allows a maximum credit of $7,500 per vehicle, consisting of $3,750 in the case of a vehicle that meets certain requirements relating to critical minerals and $3,750 in the case of a vehicle that meets certain requirements relating to battery components,” the IRS said. “The critical mineral and battery component requirements will apply to vehicles placed in service on or after April 18, 2023, the day after the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued in the Federal Register.”
A list of vehicles that will or will not be impacted by the rule change was not given by the IRS on Friday. The IRS issued another release detailing some of the requirements.
To qualify under the new rules, the IRS said that an EV must have a battery capacity of at least 7 kilowatt hours, have a gross vehicle weight of fewer than 14,000 pounds, be “made by a qualified manufacturer,” and those vehicles have to go through a final assembly in North America. The vehicle also has to be new and the seller has to report “your name and taxpayer identification number to the IRS for you to be eligible to claim the credit,” the release said.
It also said there are price and income caps, including $55,000 for sedans as well as $80,000 for trucks, vans, and SUVs. A list of EV manufacturers was placed on the IRS website.
Under the old rules, it “temporarily qualified some vehicles, like the Chevy Bolt, and some Tesla models, for the full $7,500 credit,” said electric vehicle website Electrek. “Both GM and Tesla have previously stated that they expect to lose access to some of the credit when the new battery rules go into effect (though with Tesla, this only applies to their cheapest model).”
Reactions
Some auto groups expressed their displeasure with the latest rule change.
“The proposed guidance continues to highlight the challenges ahead for U.S. automakers’ electrification efforts and consumers’ adoption of clean vehicles,” Jennifer Safavian, CEO and president of Autos Drive America, told Ars Technica. “The number of vehicles eligible for even a partial tax credit has been significantly reduced, slowing adoption of electric vehicles, under the new rules. Autos Drive America members are committed to an electrified future for our customers and look forward to continuing to collaborate with Treasury as the guidance is finalized.”
John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told the outlet that he believes only few of the 90 or so electric vehicles that are on sale in the United States will be eligible for the tax credit starting next month.
“Some EVs will certainly qualify for a partial credit. Given the constraints of the legislation, Treasury’s done as well as it could to produce rules that meet the statute and reflect the current market,” he warned to Reuters.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation this month seeking to block EV tax credits for batteries produced using Chinese technology, saying it would “significantly restrict the eligibility of IRA tax credits and prevent Chinese companies from benefiting.”
More Details
The rules are aimed at weaning the United States off dependence on China for EV battery supply chains and part of President Joe Biden’s effort to make 50 percent of U.S. new vehicle sales by 2030 EVs or plug-in hybrids. The U.S. Department of the Treasury is not immediately issuing guidance on “Foreign Entities of Concern,” a provision due to start in 2024 barring credits if any components or minerals used in EV batteries are made in countries like China.
The $430 billion Inflation Reduction Act signed by President Biden in August eliminated manufacturers’ EV sales caps, but imposed new conditions on EV credits. They included a North American assembly requirement from August, price and buyer income eligibility caps from Jan. 1, and now the battery and critical minerals sourcing rules, effective April 18.
The public will have until mid-June to comment on the proposed guidance.
**************************************************
Green propagandists continue to inflict lethal damage to our electricity industry – it has become unreliable and expensive
Their intrusive green energy infrastructure is also nibbling away at our grasslands and farms, thus reducing their capacity to produce food.
These foolish green energy policies are also threatening electric power for refrigeration. City food supplies cannot survive without reliable refrigeration at every level, from farms to retail stores.
Less often recognised is the damage green propagandists are doing to our health and our food supply by attacking animal foods and promoting grains, vegetables, seeds, and fake foods for humans.
As far back as we have recorded history, humans have been hunter-gatherers. They hunted, cooked, ate and sometimes farmed cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, ducks, turkeys, swans, antelope, buffalo, caribou, mammoths, deer, bears, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, seals, herrings, prawns, oysters, crabs, clams, cod, whales, sharks, salmon, kangaroos, possums, rabbits, hares, rats, mice, dogs, cougars, eels, snakes, and even other humans.
When the hunters were successful, the tribe rejoiced and feasted mightily before the meats spoiled. But when the hunters failed, they relied on the gatherers for ripening fruits, honey, tubers, wild onions, nuts, and laboriously harvested grains. They learned that some plant foods were toxic unless treated in special ways by grinding, roasting, fermenting, and cooking. Meat was the staple food but some tribes also consumed raw milk, butter, cheese, and blood from their animals. Fruits were seasonal foods and tubers, onions, and grains were survival foods. Party foods like sugar and alcohol were more recent inventions.
Human teeth reflect the foods they are designed to use – canines for gripping and ripping meat off bones, incisors for cutting bite-sized bits, and molars for chewing and grinding. And humans have the forward-focused eyes of predators, not the all-round eyesight of their wary prey.
Men have always battled over hunting, fishing, and farming territory, but now green ideology is trying to destroy grazing and fishing territory with national parks, world heritage declarations, and bans and quotas on farming and fishing. They subsidise the sterilisation of farms and grasslands with wind and solar ‘farms’, access roads, and spider webs of power lines. They also promote the conversion of farmland to bush and encourage offshore bird choppers whose sonic noise upsets neighbours and seems to addle the navigating abilities of some sea creatures.
Now greens are attacking our carnivore diet and promoting a granivore-vegetarian diet for humans. Politicians should be free to choose their diet, but they should not force meat lovers to pretend they are granivores with crops and gizzards, or plant-eating ruminants with extra stomachs and who spend ages re-chewing their vegetarian cuds.
The world’s teeming cities are becoming increasingly reliant on grains, sugars, oil seeds, fruits, and vegetables grown by intense farming and heavily dependent on irrigation, herbicides, and chemical fertilisers. Grain-dependent feedlots produce much of our beef, pork, mutton, salmon, prawns, chickens, and eggs, and factories produce our baked, frozen and canned foods. Now greens are promoting denatured fake ‘meat’, and ‘milks’ containing no meat or milk.
Whilst intense farming has fostered a dramatic increase in human population, the human food chain is swamped with grains, greens, and seed oils with their unhealthy lectins, glutens, oxalates, phytic acid, harmful oils, artificial sweeteners, chemical additives, and sprays. This process parallels a dramatic deterioration in human health. Like green energy, green food for humans is proving a disastrous choice.
Pretending humans are herbivores and granivores has accompanied an epidemic of ill health. Obesity, arthritis, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, leaky gut, fatty liver, dental caries, heart failure, cancers, brain fog, knee replacement, stomach stitching, birth defects, and gender confusion seem to be hallmarks of our age. The surgery waiting lists keep expanding.
But instead of trying to fix our dietary problems, we have created a massive new ‘health’ industry. While human diets race off in the wrong direction, health research seeks magic bullets and focuses on profitable vaccines, patentable medicines, expensive surgery, and genetic wizardry.
Even grazing animals that once lived mainly on grasses and herbs (with a little ripening grass seeds just before the hard times of winter) are now confined in food factories, with little exercise, and encouraged to gorge on farmed grains. Omnivorous pigs and chickens and vegetarian cattle and sheep now stand in pens and feedlots eating grain-rich feeds.
The bun, chips, and salad have swamped the meat in the ‘beef’ burger and there is often more batter and potato than seafood in ‘fish and chips’. Breakfast cereals have replaced bacon and eggs, and fake ‘meat’ and fake ‘milks’ are lauded as healthy choices.
We can see the obese results of this green food revolution waddling down the aisles of supermarkets and ordering green smoothies and muffins in the food courts.
Green energy will prove a disaster for our economy, and green foods will be a deadly choice for many humans.
Footpaths will be crowded with mobility scooters and hospitals and care homes will be overwhelmed by unhealthy ageing vegans.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/the-green-foods-time-bomb/
***********************************************Capitalising on climate anxiety: what you need to know about 'climate-washing'
People are increasingly making choices about which products to buy and which service providers to use on climate change grounds. With concerns about climate change now affecting most Australians, businesses that promote climate-aligned practices and make emissions-reduction promises have a competitive advantage over those that don’t.
But sometimes these claims fail to live up to reality. Climate-related greenwashing, or “climate-washing”, communicates a message that exaggerates or misrepresents climate credentials through advertising, branding, labelling or reporting.
Examples include where corporate marketing and government campaigns promising “net-zero emissions by 2050” are not backed by a credible plan. Or products are promoted as “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” when they’re not. It also includes where banks and other investors claim to fund a “cleaner future” when this is not completely true, potentially masking climate-related financial risk.
Climate-washing is a problem because the offending businesses capitalise on climate anxiety. It also allows businesses lacking robust credentials to gain customers and market advantage on false pretences. Ultimately, it also hinders rather than helps progress towards emissions reduction goals.
In March, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced a crack-down on climate-washing and greenwashing. This followed an ACCC report revealing claims made by more than half the 247 Australian businesses reviewed in an internet sweep raised concern. The ACCC has said it will now undertake enforcement, compliance and education activities.
On Wednesday the Senate agreed to establish an inquiry into greenwashing by corporations in Australia. The inquiry will investigate the impacts of greenwashing on consumers and the environment and will identify the legal and regulatory actions needed to stop it.
The credibility gap
The imperative to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century has been consistently reinforced by climate science. This includes, most recently, this month’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
One of the upshots has been a deluge of net-zero strategic marketing. Particularly in the case of large climate change contributors – such as fossil fuel companies, airlines and the meat industry – adopting a net-zero narrative switches public perception that the company is part of the solution, rather than the problem.
Climate-washing essentially describes a gap between what’s promised and what’s likely to be achieved. This “credibility gap” can be due to factors such as over-reliance on speculative technology, offsetting, and modelling that’s outdated or hasn’t been properly verified. Although there’s a big global push toward transparency, many entities don’t adequately disclose the data and assumptions behind their promises.
Complaints and court cases
Last week, a group called Flight Free and their lawyers approached the ACCC over Etihad Airways advertising that said, “flying shouldn’t cost the earth” and “net zero emissions by 2050”. The ads were shown prominently at a soccer match in Melbourne last year. Flight Free says the advertising is misleading.
The Etihad complaint follows the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility’s Federal Court proceedings against gas company Santos. Currently afoot, this complaint challenges Santos’ “clean fuel” and “net-zero by 2040” claims.
Earlier this year, corporate watchdog ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investment Commission) initiated proceedings against super fund Mercer for allegedly misleading investors into thinking their investments in a “sustainable” investment option excluded fossil fuels.
Around the world, there’s been a recent rise in climate-washing litigation. Multiple complaints allege that the football association FIFA falsely advertised the Qatar World Cup as “fully carbon neutral.”
In aviation, there’s a pending court case against KLM targeting its “fly responsibly” campaign, and there’s also been a successful challenge to RyanAir’s low-carbon campaign.
Product complaints have ranged from allegedly climate-neutral bin liners, to “climate-controlled pork” in Denmark, and “climate-neutral croquettes” in Germany.
How is climate-washing regulated?
Climate-washing is a form of misleading and deceptive conduct, which is regulated in Australia under federal competition and consumer law.
Climate-washing that relates to financial products and services is regulated under securities and investments law.
Both the ACCC and ASIC monitor climate-washing.
Globally, concerns over climate-washing have led to action by the United Nations. A High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities was formed last year to target climate-washing. The group has a “zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing” mantra, and delivered a report at November’s Climate Change COP in Egypt, which contains a “how-to” guide for credible, accountable net-zero pledges.
***************************************
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)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment