UK Electricity Rates Five Times Higher Than China’s Thanks To Net Zero
The United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change in 1988 and in 1995 the first Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP1) was held in Berlin.
There has been a COP meeting every year since then, apart from 2020 when covid intervened.
Last year COP28 was held in the United Arab Emirates and was attended by 84,000 delegates who flew in from all around the world to lecture the rest of us about the importance of reducing our carbon footprint.
In the nearly 30 years since COP conferences began, the U.K. has halved its CO2 emissions so that we now account for a mere 1% of the global total. But in this same time interval, the developing world has massively increased its CO2 emissions.
For example, China’s CO2 emissions have quadrupled and now account for 29% of the global total.
India’s emissions have tripled and now account for 7% of the global total. Both countries are still increasing their CO2 emissions.
The problem is that ‘green’ technologies are not very good. Electric cars and renewable energy are more expensive and inferior in performance to their fossil fuel equivalents.
So as the developing world industrializes, it is using fossil fuel technology to keep its costs down.
Is it right for the privileged people of the First World to tell the poorest people in the Third World to stop operating gas- and coal-fired power stations and stop driving petrol cars because of worries that in 50 years the planet will be warmer?
Climate modeling is so complex and uncertain that we don’t know how much warmer and we don’t know the consequences of that warming. Quite understandably the priority for the leaders of the developing world is to improve the lives of people now rather than worry about what may or may not happen in 50 years hence.
Even though [the UK] only produces 1% of global CO2 emissions, our government has decided we must press on with being world leaders in Net Zero.
Because our ‘carbon footprint’ is already so small, reducing it further will have no measurable impact on global temperatures, but it will further impoverish British people.
For example, we are repeatedly told by the green lobby (which these days occupy influential positions in politics, the media, universities, and business) that renewables are now the cheapest form of energy generation and we should build ever more wind farms and solar farms.
Since the U.K. is already a world leader in offshore wind, it follows that we should have some of the lowest electricity prices in the world.
In fact, the opposite is true; the U.K. has some of the highest electricity prices in the world.
Typically people in this country pay more than twice as much for electricity as they do in the USA, where shale gas has transformed the energy market, and more than five times as much as in China, where they are still building coal-fired power stations.
The reason the U.K.’s electricity prices are so high is that there is a massive hidden cost in renewables its supporters gloss over or never mention, namely the need to have backup energy generation for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
*********************************************
EPA Threatens Locally Produced Beef
On Jan. 23, 2024, under Biden Administration guidance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a new rule that will bring 3,879 meat and poultry products (MPP) processing facilities under their jurisdiction. This was swiftly followed by an abbreviated comment period which closed on March 25, 2024, and then immediate implementation of the rule change.
All justified by wastewater levels of Nitrogen and Phosphorus coming from animal meat processing, mirroring the World Economic Forum (WEF) agenda to minimize Nitrogen runoff from European farms which has sparked the widespread farmer protests throughout the European Union.
The new rule involves a major shift in the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the meat and poultry industry, threatening their livelihoods by forcing them to add water filtration systems to their facilities.
What does this mean to small meat processing facilities? It’s been reported that the initial cost to install a water filtration system bringing them into compliance would be $300,000–400,000 with a minimum of $100,000 annual maintenance. This would force many small meat-processing facilities to shutter their doors.
It is also a direct attack on the buy local foods movement. If local meat producers no longer have a nearby facility to process the meat, they will no longer be able to provide their product direct to the customer at food markets or online.
The EPA initially promulgated the MPP ELGs in 1974 and amended them in 2004. Currently, they only apply to approximately 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the industry. But, in the EPA’s Benefit Cost Analysis, they state that “EPA estimates the regulatory options potentially affect 3,879 MPP facilities.”
Accordingly, the history of the EPA’s regulation of MPP effluent guidelines and standards has never extended beyond direct discharge facilities and this rule significantly expands their regulatory overreach.
The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC) filed comments opposing the proposed rule and was joined by other county coalitions and American Stewards of Liberty. KNRC, an organization of 30 Kansas counties, states these proposed rules will “regulate indirect discharge facilities” that “departs from constitutional and statutory authority” significantly altering the balance between state and federal powers.
They also state that the proposal “gives priority to environmental justice goals and emphasizes ecological benefits, but the EPA jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is not based on ecological importance or environmental justice.”
Demonstrating that the “comment period” was mere window dressing to meet formal federal comment requirements, immediately on March 25, 2024 the EPA jammed through a finalized version of its devastating new interpretation of the Clean Water Act, which it has titled “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category.” Clearly this is another case of aggressive, arbitrary and capricious EPA regulatory overreach, directly analogous to the recent Supreme Court case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 597 U.S. 697 (2022), a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the Clean Air Act, and the extent to which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate carbon dioxide emissions related to climate change.
According to the EPA, after months of study and testing to look for bacteria, viruses etc., what they actually found in the wastewater of processing facilities was Nitrogen and Phosphorus. Two of the fundamental elements which all living things are composed of (Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorus).
As a result, the EPA has decided that the entire meat industry—from slaughtering beef to poultry, marinas to packaging—must now retrofit current facilities with lagoons and biomass dissipates to turn “nutrients” into CO2 and methane in order to prevent these “pollutants” from entering local water supplies.
The EPA anticipates these new rules will, at least, result in the closure of 16 processing facilities across the country at a time when our country’s meat producers are already struggling to survive due to bottlenecks in USDA certified facilities. However, on the high side EPA estimates include an impact range of up to 845 processing facilities.
The EPA acknowledges (via the Federal Register) that this rule change will have far-reaching impacts up and down the supply chain from consumer prices to producer losses.
A press release was just put out by a consortium of protein producers who have said this will cost “millions more than the EPA’s highest estimates and result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.”
It gets worse;
Facilities can bypass these new regulations by drastically reducing their weekly/annual pounds processed. However, the US population continues to grow (largely due to immigration) at a rate that we’re currently incapable of feeding with record low volumes of meet production. Reducing pounds processed will have sizable impacts upon food security, as will further closures, and supply chain disruptions. These issues have now risen to the point of being a national security threat.
Problems in the rule change;
* The rule change fails to provide clarity or funding to local water treatment facilities for testing or range of acceptable levels of runoff, and in my opinion oversteps federal authority (Waters of the United States (WOTUS) jurisdiction) by dictating local water rights. Especially as the EPA acknowledges most water used in processing is from a well source, or privately owned water source.
* The rules fail to account for foreign inputs, and actually incentivize domestic closures, prioritizing imported meat products in a manner conducive to the monopolistic multinational conglomerate beef producers who are not U.S.-based. This, at a time when the United States has gradually become a net importer yet facing critical infrastructure collapses, such as the Key Bridge.
* The rules specify 17 species of endangered animals that may become affected by the salt residues (a byproduct of the process they want used to turn biomass into gas), as these salts flow “downstream” from processing facilities. This is bogus language to attempt to establish jurisdictional standing, as the rules do not differentiate between facilities that are near navigable waters vs facilities that have private water rights.
However, for those that do comply, as opposed to reducing production, they’ll be left open and vulnerable to future lawsuits from environmental activists over endangered species. These lawsuits have historically become costly, with states eventually caving to the demands made, as evidenced by the Oregon Dept of Forestry v. Cascadia in filing after filing—Spotted Owl to CoHo Salmon—resulting in the drastic reduction of privately owned timber lands and logging contracts.
* The rules currently allow for the off-gassing of the biomass as it becomes CO2 and methane, but say nothing about future carbon taxes, or financial burdens that may be incurred due to the additional carbon outputs via the new carbon credit/taxes the Biden Administration created via the Commodities Credit Corporation. Oregon, California, and Washington have already instituted state versions of Cap and Trade legislation e.g. requiring companies to purchase these carbon credits in order to remain in business.
Aside from the massive overreach in relation to non-navigable waters of the United States, typically locally regulated, or an authority reserved to the states to regulate, these new rule changes have the potential to negatively impact our food supply for years to come.
Congressmen Estes and Burlison have proposed H.R. 7079, the “BEEF ACT” (formally known as H.R.7079—Banning EPA’s Encroachment on Facilities Act), as a means of prohibiting the EPA from using its deferential authority (Chevron doctrine) to interpret the Clean Water Act. However, this legislation currently has a 1 percent chance of being enacted, and only a 4 percent chance of passing out of the House Committee on Transportation.
In parallel to direct legislative action, there is clearly a need to mount a legal challenge to this action, one which can build upon the precedent established by West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, which should benefit from the anticipated Supreme Court action to overturn the Chevron deference legal precedent which currently enables this type of regulatory overreach. Further information concerning the Chevron deference can be found in this Substack essay, and SCOTUS Blog has covered the current status of the Supreme Court case in an article titled “Supreme Court likely to discard Chevron.”
***********************************************
Scotland’s Net Zero Target ‘Beyond What Is Credible’: Report
Scotland’s target of reducing carbon emissions by 75 percent by 2030 is “beyond what is credible” to be achieved, the independent climate advisory body has said.
On Wednesday, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said that the Scottish Government was “failing to achieve” the country’s “ambitious” climate goals. The committee said that in order to meet the target, emissions reduction in most sectors would have to increase by a factor of nine between now and 2030.
“The acceleration required in emissions reduction to meet the 2030 target is now beyond what is credible,” the report to the Scottish Parliament said.
“The Scottish Government is failing to achieve Scotland’s ambitious climate goals,” the CCC said.
The report also noted that “only three of the 14 key recommendations from the CCC’s 2022 Scottish Progress Report scored ‘good progress’. Two scored ‘moderate progress’, seven scored ‘some but insufficient progress’, and two made ‘no progress’ at all.”
While the UK government has set net zero targets, Scotland has its own milestones for reducing carbon emissions, including the interim goal of reducing carbon emissions by 75 percent—compared to levels of territorial emissions in 1990—by 2030. The UK government aims for a 68 percent reduction by that year.
Annual Targets ‘Repeatedly Missed’
Scotland’s annual targets for reducing emissions are “repeatedly missed,” said the CCC, marking eight times in 12 years that goals have not been achieved. The report also noted that emissions increased in 2021, in part owing to colder than average temperatures and a rise in transport emissions post-COVID-19 lockdowns.
The CCC also chastised the Scottish Parliament for failing to publish its new draft Climate Change Plan, which was due for release in late 2023.
Without the plan, there is “no comprehensive delivery strategy for meeting future emissions targets” and “actions continue to fall far short of what is legally required.”
“Scotland’s Climate Change Plan needs to be published urgently, so we can assess it. We need to see actions that will deliver on its future targets,” said Professor Piers Forster, interim chairman of the CCC.
Progress ‘Off Track’ for Heat Pumps, Tree Planting, Recycling
The CCC pinpointed that “most key indicators of delivery progress are off track,” including heat pump installations, recycling, tree planting, peatland restoration, and selling electric cars and vans.
The independent advisory body noted that the sale of electric vehicles was lower than in the UK as a whole, at just 2 percent in 2022. The report said that Scotland will need to “treble the pace of rollout of public electric vehicle charge points” as well as reduce car traffic by 20 percent.
Just 6,000 domestic heat pumps had been installed in Scotland last year, with the CCC saying this needed to increase “by a factor of at least thirteen” to meet the target of 80,000 a year by the end of this decade.
Heat pump uptake has also been slow in the rest of Britain. The National Audit Office (NAO) said in a report published on Monday that the uptake of the new technology with the Boiler Upgrade Scheme in England and Wales was less than half (18,900) of that expected (50,000) between May 2022 and December 2023. The NAO said that the cost of installing and maintaining heat pumps was discouraging people from transitioning from gas boilers.
Scotland had also missed its peatland restoration target for the fifth year in a row, while “more than double” the amount of new woodland needs to be created, with just 8,000 hectares established in 2022–2023 compared to an aim of 18,000 hectares.
While the report did say that Scotland was on track for its offshore wind capacity by 2030, onshore wind capacity needs to “double.”
Mr. Forster said, “Scotland has laudable ambitions to decarbonise but it isn’t enough to set a target—the government must act.”
Scotland ‘Half Way to Net Zero’
The Scottish Government’s net zero secretary, Mairi McAllan, said that she was grateful for the latest advice from the CCC’s report, and that her government remains “fully committed to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2045, and in 2024–25 alone we are committing £4.7 billion to support the delivery of our climate change goals.”
“Scotland is already half way to net zero and continues to decarbonise faster than the UK average,” Ms. McAllan said.
The minister outlined her government’s net zero endeavours in the last five years, including that Scotland had created around 75 percent of all new UK woodlands and invested over £65 million to support the installation of over 2,700 public electronic vehicle charging points, “ensuring Scotland has the best provision of public charge points per head of population in the UK, outside of London.”
“However, over the past 12 months Scotland has faced a series of unprecedented changes by the UK government, who have reneged on their net zero commitments, and rolled back on policies already announced and accounted for,” Ms. McAllan said.
“We are also expecting a real-terms cut to our UK capital funding of almost 10 percent over five years, totalling around £1.3 billion, which is deeply concerning given it has implications for the delivery of climate ambition in Scotland and our ability to produce a draft Climate Change Plan as intended,” she continued.
The net zero secretary said her government had also faced opposition to “modest” climate measures, such as low emission zones and workplace parking.
“We will now carefully consider the report’s recommendations and our next steps, including legislative options, before providing a formal response,” she said.
Scotland’s 2030 Target a ‘Fiscal Risk’
The CCC assessment of the Scottish Government’s ability to meet its ambitious net zero targets comes after the Scottish Fiscal Commission (SFC) said the government would have to spend £1.1 billion a year over the period of 2020 to 2050 to achieve net zero. This is around 18 percent of its capital budget.
The SFC said in its report published last week that while achieving net zero is a responsibility shared by the central UK and Scottish governments, the “fiscal burden” may fall more onto Scotland which will need to invest more in forestry and land use.
The committee also labelled the 2030 target to reduce emissions by 75 percent a “fiscal risk,” saying, “Overall, this presents a substantial pressure for public spending and could be difficult to manage within the Scottish Budget.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/scotlands-net-zero-target-beyond-what-is-credible-report-5610183
*********************************************Another limit to Australia's electric vehicle revolution
If you are towing something with an EV, you can't just drive onto a forecourt and fill up as you would with a combustion-powered vehicle. Anybody who ever tows a trailer of any kind would be mad to buy an EV. EVs are just a rich man's toy
I have financed an older couple to travel around Australia towing a long and very well-appointed caravan. A diesel Toyota Prado does an effortless and untroubled job of towing it. They pass through many country areas so would just not be able to do the trip with an EV.
The photo of a grey Tesla hooked up to a BP Pulse charging station at an undisclosed location was shared in a Facebook group on Thursday, captioned: 'I'm aware they don't have a spare tyre, I wasn't aware that they don't have reverse.'
Clearly well beyond the bay's perimeters, the majority of the car had mounted the kerb in front.
Social media users were quick to criticise the car's position, questioning why the driver didn't reverse into the spot to make it easier for the charging cable to reach the outlet.
But it soon became apparent why the Tesla was across the boundaries of the parking bay when the original image, which had been cropped, resurfaced and revealed the Tesla was towing a trailer.
It highlights yet another glaring issue with the government's plans to drastically grow the country's EV network by 2030.
Of the 3,000 electric vehicle charging stations currently available nationwide, none of them are equipped for cars towing caravans.
The current infrastructure means drivers often have to unhitch the trailer to effectively charge their vehicle or risk blocking other vehicles.
Carola Jonas, CEO and Founder of Everty, said it's something charging station owners and operators must 'pay close attention to'.
As well as having a lot of catching up to do in terms of having ample charging stations both roadside and in buildings, Jonas argued 'a balance' must be found with the types of bays available for drivers.
'If you look at the charging stations in Wilson or Secure car parks in the city CBDs the parking bays there are limited, but you also wouldn't use these ones with a trailer,' she told Yahoo News Australia.
'But then when you look at highway charging or charging in more public open locations, it would definitely be good if the charging networks start implementing a mix [of suitable bays].'
Some charging networks are currently installed in the 'trucking areas' of some petrol stations so trucks and longer EV vehicles can still use them, Jonas continued.
'So even if you come there with a normal passenger car, you can just drive into the trucking parking area and use the charger. The other way around, it wouldn't have been possible.
'So there are solutions, but it's really for the infrastructure providers to make sure they're for the right mix.'
***************************************
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