The Golden State of California Is Turning Brown Without Continuous Electricity

As a resident of California for more than six decades, I am aware that the availability of continuously generated electricity in California is deteriorating and will get worse!

The “Green New Deal” and “Net Zero” policies in California that are supported by Governor Newsom and the Democratic Presidential candidate Kamala Harris have led to the state’s most expensive electricity and fuel prices in America and increasingly high cost of living, housing, and transportation, coupled with an increase in crime, smash-and-grab robberies, homelessness, pollution, and congestion that has caused many tax-paying residents and companies to exodus California to more affordable cities and states.

California’s net move-out number of residents in 2022 alone was more than 343,000 people that left California — the highest exodus of any state in the U.S.

The California Policy Institute counted more than 237 businesses that have left the state since 2005. Among these businesses were eleven Fortune 1000 companies, including AT&T, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently made a startling admission: U.S. electricity demand will double by 2050, and meeting that soaring demand will require the equivalent of building 300 Hoover Dams.

The last California Nuclear Power Plant at Diablo Canyon, a 2.2 GW plant generating continuous uninterruptable electricity, is projected to close soon. In nameplate only, it would take 1,000 2.2MW wind turbines to generate 2.2 GW, but then, it’s only intermittent electricity vs. the continuous uninterruptable electricity from Diablo demanded by the California economy!

As a result of the “Green New Deal” and “Net Zero” policies and renewables of wind and solar stations built at the expense of taxpayer dollars, California now imports more electric power than any other US state, more than twice the amount in Virginia, the USA’s second-largest importer of electric power. California typically receives between one-fifth and one-third of its electricity supply from outside of the state.

Power prices are rocketing into the stratosphere and, even before winter drives up demand, are being deprived of continuous electricity in a way that was unthinkable barely a decade ago. But such is life when you attempt to run the economy on sunshine and breezes.

Further, these so-called “green” electricity sources of wind and solar are not clean, green, renewable or sustainable. They also endanger wildlife.

California’s economy depends on affordable, reliable, and ever-cleaner electricity and fuels. Unfortunately, policymakers are driving up California’s electric and gas prices, and California now has the highest electricity and fuel prices in the nation. Those high energy prices are contributing to the pessimistic business sentiment. California’s emission mandates have done an excellent job of increasing the cost of electricity, products, and fuels to its citizens.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that these supposed “green” alternative methods of generating electricity won’t work — especially as electricity demand is projected to double by 2050 due to AI, charging of EVs and data centers, government-mandated electric heating and cooking, and charging grid-backup batteries. Intermittent electricity from wind and solar cannot power modern nations.

These “green” wind and solar projects primarily exist because they are financed with taxpayer money, i.e., disguised by taxpayers as “Government Subsidies.”

“GREEN” policymakers are oblivious to humanity’s addiction to the products and fuels from fossil fuels, as they are to these two basic facts:

(1) No one uses crude oil in its raw form. “Big Oil” only exists because of humanity’s addiction to the products and fuels made from oil!

(2) “Renewables” like wind and solar only exist to generate intermittent electricity; they CANNOT make products or fuels!

To rid the world of crude oil usage, there is no need to over-regulate or over-tax the oil industry; just STOP using the products and fuels made from crude oil!

Simplistically:

STOP making cars, trucks, aircraft, boats, ships, farming equipment, medical equipment and supplies, communications equipment, military equipment, etc., that demand crude oil for their supply chain of products.

STOPPING the demands of society for the products and fuels made from oil will eliminate the need for crude oil.

The primary growth in electric power usage is coming from new data centers housing AI technologies. It is expected that over the next few decades, 50% of additional electric power will be needed just for AI, but data centers CANNOT run on occasional electricity from wind and solar.

How will the occasionally generated electricity from wind and solar support the following:

America’s military fleet of vehicles, ships, and aircraft?
America’s commercial and private aircraft?
America’s hospitals?
America’s space exploration?

Despite Governor Newsom’s and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’s support for the “Green New Deal” and “Net Zero” policies in California, it’s time to stimulate conversations about the generation of continuously generated electricity to meet the demands of America’s end users.

https://heartland.org/opinion/the-golden-state-of-california-is-turning-brown-without-continuous-electricity/

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

Right, Rigzone and Rystad Energy, Oil and Gas Will Remain Dominant for the Foreseeable Future

A recent article at Rigzone, “Rystad: Oil, Gas Will Remain Central to Energy Mix for Foreseeable Future,” reports on comments made by Rystad Energy, a Norwegian energy research company, in a report it published claiming that despite the push for renewables, oil and gas will stay dominant as an energy source in the coming years. This is true, although Rystad goes on to lament the resulting emissions and tries to push further decarbonization. It is true that there has been little actual transition, despite what renewables hawks say.

Rigzone writes that “despite the accelerating energy transition, oil and gas will remain central to the global energy mix for the foreseeable future as the key hydrocarbon sources continue to satisfy global primary energy demand, Rystad Energy stated in a release . . ..”

Rystad predicts that more than 75 percent of total energy demand will be met by fossil fuels by 2030.

Rystad’s report says that as upstream energy companies “work to transform into integrated energy players and decarbonize their operations, it is crucial not only to achieve transition goals but also to minimize the carbon footprint of upstream activities, with extraction of these resources accounting for more than 800 million tonnes of CO2e every year.”

Going further, Rystad recommends recommend energy companies focus more intensely on “premium energy basins” to try to “decarbonize” operations.

It seems strange that Rystad would say it’s crucial to “achieve transition goals” – meaning the so-called energy transition away from the use of fossil fuels, which would not only “minimize” the carbon footprint of upstream operations, but aims to eliminate them altogether. They advocate in wishy-washy corporate terms for the annihilation of the industry that Rigzone purportedly represents.

In terms of energy supply, Rystad’s report predicts that even as wind and solar produce a larger percentage of energy by 2050, overall the global energy supply will drop rather than continue to rise. This forecast should alarm anyone concerned about continued economic growth, which tracks energy use. It is especially troubling when one considers the political push to electrify everything, from electric vehicles, to appliances, in addition to the projected demand for power from utilities to satisfy the growing demand electricity to power data centers and AI facilities.

Real-world electricity production data described by Our World in Data, provides little evidence of a transition from fossil fuels to renewables. Rather wind, biofuels, and solar are being added to the overall mix, with traditional sources of energy still growing, although at a slower rate than in past decades. Consumption of all energy sources has increased or remained constant since the 1980s.

Coal, despite being villainized in the West lately, may well also continue to see increasing demand in international markets. In 2022, a new record for coal consumption was hit, and it made up 37 percent of the world’s energy use in 2023. In 2022 India revised their energy use targets and increased their coal production and use. As discussed in a Climate Realism post, “Green Media Misrepresents World’s Energy Reality,” India, on its own, is set to consume more energy than all the countries that make up the European Union by 2030, and coal will be large part of that mix. Likewise China continues to buy up and use coal, and they also have been steadily increasing demand for oil.

Renewables would need to make an unbelievable, and likely technologically and materially impossible, jump in the coming years to catch up and displace fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal.

As Climate Realism has pointed out many times; here, here, and here, for example, forcing an energy transition will lead to misery and reduced or halted standards of living for people around the world.

It is not clear what Rigzone and Rystad mean by an “accelerating” energy transition, based on the facts above. If anything, it seems like the growth of coal and oil and gas are at worst keeping pace with gains made by renewables like wind and solar. Rigzone and Rystad are both correct, though, that for the foreseeable future oil and gas will continue to make up the vast majority of global energy production.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/09/right-rigzone-and-rystad-energy-oil-and-gas-will-remain-dominant-for-the-foreseeable-future/

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

Fiat Suspends Production of Electric Car for Month Due to Slump in EV Demand

Italian car maker Fiat has told the workforce on its electric 500 assembly line to down tools for a month due to lack of demand for the battery-powered city cars. The Mail has more.

Its parent company Stellantis said on Thursday it would suspend production of the fully electric Fiat 500e for four weeks due to sluggish demand.

The global slowdown in sales of electric vehicles, partly due to diverging policies on green incentives, has pushed car makers worldwide to adjust their EV plans, with Volvo earlier in the month abandoning its ambitions of becoming an electric-only auto maker in 2030.

“The measure is necessary due to the current lack of orders linked to the deep difficulties experienced in the European electric (car) market by all producers, particularly the European ones,” Stellantis said in a statement issued earlier in the week.

The 500 is made in Turin, the birthplace of the Fiat brand, at the historic Mirafiori plant.

The suspension of production will start on Friday, Stellantis said, adding it was “working hard to manage at its best this hard phase of transition”.

As part of these efforts, the Franco-Italian group said it is investing €100 million euros (£85 million) in the Mirafiori plant to adopt a higher performance battery.

Changes to the factory are also afoot due to the decision to produce a hybrid version of the 500 electric model, starting between 2025 and 2026 – another reactionary move to tackle a slowdown in EV demand.

When Fiat discussed the reasons behind the decision to reintroduce a petrol-hybrid powerplant – something it originally said it would not do with the intention of the new 500 being electric only – it pointed to older drivers in particular not wanting to buy battery-powered vehicles.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/14/fiat-suspends-production-of-electric-car-for-month-due-to-slump-in-ev-demand/

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

The insane Net Zero revolution is starting to devour its own children

The latest technology to fall foul of the zealots passionate hatred of all things hydrocarbon is ‘carbon capture’, a process that consumes billions of dollars, often fails to meet expectations and, horror of horrors, justifies the continuing activities of oil and gas companies

Green Blob-funded Oil Change International (OCI) has released a report entitled ‘Funding Failure: Carbon capture and fossil hydrogen subsidies exposed’.

In an article circulated by Blob-funded Covering Climate Now and published by DeSmog (recently given £400,000 by the Rowntree Trust to continue running a grubby ‘blacklist’ of so-called ‘climate deniers’) ‘carbon’ capture is said to be a “colossal waste” with the United States leading the way in public spending on “false climate solutions”.

Perhaps not such good news for the Mad Miliband’s £8 billion GB Energy operation which will act as a state-run subsidy fund for numerous wacky green projects including ‘carbon’ capture and hydrogen.

The zealots are correct about ‘carbon’ capture and hydrogen. They both use vast amounts of energy to little effect. But there are few ‘green’ solutions in town to back up intermittent wind and solar power, so to date it is any port in a storm.

But capturing carbon dioxide from combusted material or the atmosphere and compressing it to store underground for eternity is crazy. The old saying, ‘fools and their money are easily parted’ springs to mind.

As an alternative to natural gas and a solution to electricity grid-scale storage, hydrogen – expensive, dangerous and lacking in kinetic energy – has almost nothing to offer.

Other major disadvantages of hydrogen have recently been discussed. The Daily Sceptic reported on a science paper that noted the higher combustion temperature of hydrogen can produce more ‘polluting’ nitrogen dioxide.

If runaway global ‘heating’ is your fear, the paper calculated that, pound for pound, escaping hydrogen causes 37 times more warming than CO2 since it produces ozone in the troposphere and water vapour in the stratosphere.

All the past observational evidence points to the conclusion that the warming properties of gases ‘saturate’ at certain atmospheric levels, but for alarmists it seems that backing hydrogen is an increasingly bad look.

If the figures presented by OCI are correct, the scale of the waste is truly colossal. Since the 1990s an estimated $83 billion has been “invested” in ‘carbon’ capture, but it has failed to make a dent in ‘carbon’ emissions. “Carbon capture projects consistently fail, overspend or underperform,” the report claims.

Over 80 percent of projects in the U.S. are said to fail due to technical issues, over-investment and a lack of financial returns. Even if the projects functioned as planned they would only capture 0.1 percent of emissions.

No doubt OCI is worried about taxpayer money being hosed away on useless projects, although ‘greens’ usually take a relaxed view of such matters. But the real hatred for capturing CO2 is that it is used to enhance oil and gas production.

The gas is sometimes pumped underground to extract the last barrels of oil from an exhausted field. ‘Carbon’ capture subsidies are said to enhance ‘fossil fuel’ extraction and boost oil industry profits.

The money wasted to date on ‘carbon’ capture and hydrogen is appalling, but it is a fraction of the amount of public money made available to spend in the near future. OCI claims that policies announced since 2020 could amount to over $230 billion.

One obvious take-away from the table is the ludicrous amounts of money committed by the United Kingdom, a legacy of Buffo Boris and recent ‘Net Zero’-obsessed Conservative governments.

For hapless British taxpayers, Mad Miliband is just the latest in a long line of politician removing cash from the wallets of working people and putting it in the hands of subsidy hunting, ‘planet-saving’ spivs where it is thought to most properly belong.

In the UK, as elsewhere, the ‘Net Zero’ madness has exploded as a political issue with citizens slowly realising what is being planned. None of this will come as a surprise to regular readers of the Daily Sceptic.

We have aimed to report on what the zealots have been writing and planning. Government-funded UK FIRES takes a realistic look at a future without hydrocarbons and envisages a 2050 world without meat, without personal travel and buildings made of compacted earth.

Britain could lose 75% of its energy supply by 2050 and the “whole excitement” of UK FIRES’s work has been to recognise that such a shortfall “is close to a certain reality”.

In other words, electrticity will become a thing of the past for all but the rich.

Meanwhile, the ‘green’ billionaire-funded C40 group, chaired by Labour Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, raises the possibility of heavy reductions of personal transport and the imposition of Second World War-style rations with the populace being ‘allowed’ to have just 44 grams of meat a day.

This “pioneering piece of thought leadership” was said to seek a “radical, and rapid, shift in consumption patterns”.

Needless to say, none of this stuff gets a mention in mainstream media, but it is always a good idea to discover what the true zealot is actually planning. Few clues as to their plans are available while they are seeking political power, as we saw in the recent British General Election.

In the current U.S. Presidential campaign, Vice President Giggles is following a similar path, secure in the knowledge that carefully selected poodle journalists will not ask inconvenient questions.

https://principia-scientific.com/the-insane-net-zero-revolution-is-starting-to-devour-its-own-children/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Frustrated wannabe authoritarians

It’s refreshing to see Democrats tear their hair out over the blessings our freedoms give us. Just look at their goal of “transitioning” from fossil fuel vehicles to electric vehicles (including airplanes and construction equipment). The whole plan is based on the unproven connection between the use of fossil fuels and climate change.

Whatever their motivations, it’s not working out as they hoped it would. Don’t be surprised if they soon switch crusades from climate change to some other “emergency.”

As is often the case, Democrats were smitten with a cause — in this case, electric vehicles to rescue the climate — and assumed everyone else would fall in love with it, too.

Then, when President Joe Biden proposed rules that would require 60 percent of new cars sold to be battery-powered by 2030 and 66 percent by 2032, what happened?

Unfortunately for these aspiring socialists, the U.S. economy is still predominantly based on that economic freedom known as voluntary exchange.

So far, auto buyers have not voluntarily exchanged enough of their hard earned dollars for E.V.s. The vast majority continue to prefer fossil fuel alternatives. At this point, only about 7 percent of cars sold are electric. Furthermore, according to a McKinsey & Company survey, 46 percent of electric vehicle owners say they intend to switch back to internal-combustion cars.

A Catch-22 the E.V. enthusiasts are struggling with is the need to maintain a rough balance between the number of E.V.s and the number of charging stations. Unless the number of E.V.s grows, there will be no incentive to build more charging stations. A scarcity of charging stations is already something that E.V. owners complain about.

Democrat policy-makers believe they are far more clever than the rest of us. They don’t seem to think it’s necessary to determine how many car buyers are perfectly happy with their gasoline and diesel vehicles and unimpressed with E.V.s.

In order for their electric vehicle dream to happen, let alone work, they would have needed unlimited power from the git-go. Their precious transition would have required not just subsidies, but brute force as well. Their plan would have necessitated doing away with, in advance, our preference for voluntary exchange.

Democrats are against voluntary exchange because they don’t approve of what we do with it, such as producing and consuming fossil fuels. Fortunately for the rest of us, these incompetent Marxists neglected to emasculate us prior to springing their E.V. fantasy on us. They mistakenly left us free to say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” Thanks to voluntary exchange we did just that.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/08/frustrated_wannabe_authoritarians.html

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

Most climate policies have something in common: They don't work

by Jeff Jacoby

IN SEPTEMBER 1945, the classical liberal scholar (and future Nobel laureate) Friedrich Hayek published "The Use of Knowledge in Society." One of the most influential articles in modern economics, it explained that far-reaching government policies often fail because policy makers invariably lack all the knowledge required to understand a problem well enough to solve it. Consequently, government policies frequently backfire, trigger unintended consequences, or simply prove unavailing.

Examples of Hayek's insight, often called "the knowledge problem," abound. Urban renewal tore apart once-vibrant communities, displacing tens of thousands of residents or relocating them into housing projects that became centers of poverty and crime. The war on drugs resulted in mass incarceration, yet drugs remain widely available and overdose deaths are at or near an all-time high. Crop subsidies have routinely led to overproduction, distorted markets, and the enrichment of agribusiness giants at the expense of small farmers. Minimum wage laws, intended to boost the earnings of vulnerable workers, invariably cost many of those very workers their jobs.

Time and again, reality makes hash of the misbegotten assumption that politicians and regulators have sufficient information to plan or fine-tune complex economic systems. The bigger and more complex the system, the more likely that government policies designed to control it will turn out to be ineffective. And what system could be bigger or more complex than planetary climate change?

In a peer-reviewed study published last month in the journal Science, an international team of climate researchers and econometricians analyzed more than 1,500 climate policies enacted in 41 countries between 1998 and 2022. Their conclusion: "We identified 63 successful policy interventions with total emission reductions between 0.6 billion and 1.8 billion metric tons" of carbon dioxide.

In other words, roughly 96 percent of government policies aimed at reducing emissions were largely unsuccessful. And the 4 percent that did have a measurable impact managed to reduce greenhouse gases by a global total of, at most, 1.8 billion metric tons. That amounts to just over two-tenths of 1 percent (0.23 percent) of the 778 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted by those nations in the first two decades of this century. The emissions cuts required to reach the targets specified in the 2015 Paris Agreement — a reduction the United Nations calculates at 23 billion metric tons per year by 2030 — remain far, far out of reach.

The authors of the new paper make a valiant effort to assign their findings a silver lining. The relatively few policies that succeeded in lowering emissions were those that involved "price-based instruments" — which, as one of the researchers explained to The Wall Street Journal, "means carbon pricing, and it could be energy taxes, it could be vehicle taxes." So the researchers suggest that governments would do best to devise policies that combine pricing with other kinds of control — lower taxes plus stricter regulation, for example, or mandatory minimum carbon prices plus new efficiency standards.

To their credit, though, the authors acknowledge the inherent difficulty of crafting climate rules with any confidence that they will have the desired effect. "Despite more than two decades of experience with thousands of diverse climate policy measures gained around the world," they write, "there is consensus in neither science nor policy on this question."

Or, as senior editor Jesse Smith observes in Science's introduction to the new paper: "It is easy for countries to say they will reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, but these statements do not mean that the policies they adopt will be effective." By now there is little doubt that the policies most commonly adopted to address climate change and curb greenhouse emissions — enormous subsidies for green energy and ever-tighter restrictions on the use of fossil fuels — have not been effective.

After a quarter-century of increasingly clamorous alarms about CO2 and the imposition of sweeping laws and regulations to curtail greenhouse gases, governments can report very little accomplishment. "Global fossil fuel consumption and energy emissions hit all-time highs in 2023," Reuters reported in June. Renewable energy is up a little, thanks to all those subsidies, but its growth has been in addition to conventional fuels, not instead of them.

Thanks to enormous subsidies, renewable energy has increased in recent years. But its growth has been in addition to conventional fuels, not instead of them. Above: The Drax Power Station, a former coal plant in Selby, England, that was converted to burn biomass pellets.

The moral of the story is that what is true of housing policy or health care policy or agricultural policy is just as true of climate policy. It is very difficult for governments to knowingly and wisely change how society functions. Legislators and regulators rarely possess the necessary information to do so. They may have technical expertise, but they lack the tacit data and intelligence that is dispersed among countless individuals — subjective preferences, local conditions, changing circumstances, unspoken motivations.

In 1945, Hayek knew nothing of a climate crisis. But he did know that the "knowledge problem" never goes away. It is always sensible for policy makers to be modest about their ability to effect change. And the greater the change they envision, the more doubt they should entertain of their ability to achieve it.

https://jeffjacoby.com/28036/most-climate-policies-have-something-in-common

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

What’s Good For Generac Is Bad For America. We Bought One Anyway

If you are in the business of selling standby home generators, hurricanes, severe weather, and blackouts are good for business. And as the frequency of blackouts across the country increases, companies like Generac are making bank on the declining reliability of the US electric grid.

Generac is profiting from people like me. Back in 2021, during Winter Storm Uri, we lost power for two days. At that time, I thought the Texas grid would recover and all would return to normal. That hasn’t happened. Over the past 12 months, we have lost power at our house in central Austin three times, and in each instance, the outage lasted eight hours or more. Plus, ERCOT has repeatedly warned about looming power shortages.

Given all that, we are installing one of Generac’s whole-house standby generators. The cost: about $15,000 for a 22-kilowatt, gas-fired, air-cooled system that will automatically turn on when the lights go out. Our contractor is Current Power Technologies, a new company based in San Antonio. Grant Winston, the company’s founder and owner, told me business is “booming.” During a phone interview on Monday, he said, “I’m opening a division in Houston.” He’s also doing a lot of business in the custom home sector. As the number of blackouts in Texas has risen, standby generators are “becoming more of a standard appliance in new homes throughout the state.”

Our decision to buy a standby generator is part of a broader trend. Wisconsin-based Generac is the country’s biggest producer of home generator systems, and it sees a fertile market ahead. In its latest 10-K filing, Generac notes:

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has labeled significant portions of the United States and Canada as being at high risk of resource adequacy shortfalls during normal seasonal peak conditions in the 2024-2028 period due in part to these supply/demand dynamics. We are seeing increasing evidence that warnings of potential resource inadequacies are driving incremental consumer awareness of the need for backup power solutions. We believe utility supply shortfalls and related warnings may continue in the future, further expanding awareness of deteriorating power quality in North America. Taken together, we expect these factors to continue driving increased awareness of the need for backup power and demand for Generac’s products within multiple categories.

In its second-quarter earnings release, published on July 31, the company reported revenues of $1 billion, and it issued new guidance, saying sales will increase by 4 to 8% this year. In addition, it noted that Hurricane Beryl, which slammed Texas in July:

Highlighted the rising threat of severe and volatile weather as millions of Texans experienced power outages in the aftermath of the storm. This major power outage event is expected to drive incremental demand for home standby and portable generators in the current year, while also driving higher levels of awareness for backup power longer-term as home and business owners seek protection from future power outages. With only approximately 6% penetration of the addressable market of homes in the U.S., we believe there are significant opportunities to further penetrate the residential standby generator market as the clear leader in this category.

But what’s good for Generac is bad for America. The money being spent on home standby generators reflects the declining reliability of our power grid. Essayist Emmet Penney nailed it in 2021 when he declared that, “there is no such thing as a wealthy society with a weak electrical grid.”

The electric grid is the Mother Network. It’s the energy network that fuels all of our critical systems: lights, GPS, communications, traffic lights, water, and wastewater treatment. And yet, lousy policy and malinvestment are weakening the Mother Network. The result is what Generac calls an “increasingly imbalanced electric grid.”

Three things are weakening the grid. The most significant factor is the headlong rush to add intermittent alt-energy sources such as wind and solar. As seen above, Generac names “increasing intermittency” as one of the factors for “supply reliability deteriorating.” If we are facing more extreme weather conditions due to climate change, it’s beyond idiocy to make our most important energy network dependent on the weather. Our grid should be weather resilient, not weather dependent.

Second, too many coal and nuclear plants that provide baseload power are being prematurely shuttered.

Third, policymakers have bought the notion that electricity is a commodity instead of an essential service. This notion is, in part, a legacy of Enron, a company that wanted to trade electricity in the same way that it traded natural gas and other physical commodities. Perhaps the best example of this misunderstanding of electricity can be traced to 1999 when the Texas Legislature debated a bill that would deregulate the Texas electricity market, a measure that Enron was pushing. (The bill passed.)

During that debate, state Senator David Sibley, a Republican from Waco, stood up on the floor of the Texas Senate and declared that after deregulation, people will “be able to shop” for electricity. “If they don’t like the electric provider they’ve got, they can switch. If the price of a can of beans goes up 10 cents, people shop somewhere else. If the price of electricity goes up, people for the first time will have a choice on what they’re going to do. It’s no more business as usual.”

Shop ‘til you drop, Senator, but electricity ain’t beans.

Ever since the days of Edison and Insull, regulators have correctly viewed the electricity business as a natural monopoly. But in the name of free markets and capitalism, policymakers on the left and right have tried to make electricity fit the notion that it can be treated like any other commodity, including cans of legumes.

That has led to the current situation where no one is responsible for the electricity system’s reliability. As Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling noted here on Substack earlier this year, electricity prices are soaring, in part, due to the addition of massive amounts of solar and wind capacity to the grid, regardless of their impact on cost and reliability. They included a link to an excellent 2017 piece by Travis Kavulla, which said, “There is no free market for electricity, and there may never be.”

The declining reliability of the grid is adding a tax to the overall economy. Yes, the money we are spending on the generator is helping support factory workers in Wisconsin and a cadre of local electricians, plumbers, and skilled laborers. But our $15,000 Generac is a huge addition to our power bill that may — or may not — pay dividends over the coming years. Austin Energy (and ERCOT) have shown they can’t provide our home with reliable power. Thus, we are buying an expensive insurance policy.

https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/whats-good-for-generac-is-bad-for

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

"Dying” Coral Reefs

Coral reefs are some of creation’s most strikingly beautiful places. Clean and clear blue water, graceful whales and sea turtles, swarms of dazzling fishes, and amazing coral. We can’t get enough of coral reefs, so we adorn our walls with paintings and photos. Saltwater aquariums abound in households, restaurants and businesses around the world.

Naturally, we want to protect all this goodness and beauty. Stewardship is in our DNA. Our emotions can kick in when a threat is perceived. Unfortunately, nefarious people know this about us. People whose agenda has more to do with global power and control than with protecting coral reefs. They tap into our emotions by manufacturing threats, mixing nuggets of truth with futuristic doomsday scenarios designed to keep us in constant fear that we may lose what we love unless things change according to their plan.

Take for example the PBS News feature titled “Conservationists take drastic measures to save coral reefs from climate change.” Published earlier this year, the video begins by falsely claiming that coral reefs around the world are “slowly dying.” The video then shows members of the Coral Restoration Foundation in Florida scrambling to save a manmade coral nursery they had just planted. Members reportedly gave each other “space to grieve” the corals that died.

The truth nugget was that, indeed, the corals were dying and the water was hot. Optimum temperatures for coral are in the 73-84 °F range. At this point in July 2023, water temperatures in the coral nursery were in the low 90s.

But this truth nugget is embedded in a swarm of lies. Like the story’s title, for one. Or the narrator’s claims that in nearby Manatee Bay, waters reached 101 °F, stating this might be the “hottest ocean temperature ever recorded on Earth.” First of all, Manatee Bay is not an “ocean,” it’s a shallow, semi-enclosed body of water. Most likely, this temperature reading was measured one afternoon in a very shallow (like 6 inches deep) and stagnant part of the bay, nowhere near coral reef habitat.

Later in the story, the narrator quietly mentions that in October, the corals were returned to the nursery area. No mention is made of the “climate change” event that caused the waters to cool. Why was the natural summertime warming correlated with “climate change,” while the Fall cooling was not? To media outlets like PBS, cooling is not “climate change.” Only above average summer temperatures and fake 101 °F “ocean” temperature measurements fit the narrative.

With the “climate change” threat averted by Fall and Winter, the PBS story switches to an even more ferocious, and fake, threat: the total collapse of all coral reefs everywhere. IF something this cataclysmic actually happened, we would all be dead, too, but nevermind that minor detail.

Enter the Smithosonian’s Mary Hagedorn, who spearheads a coral cryopreservation project. Hagedorn works for the largely taxpayer funded Smithsonian on Coconut Island in Hawaii. She says she wants to preserve coral for future generations, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Throughout the world we have “seed banks” to preserve plant species. In a similar manner, Hagedorn hopes to develop a cheap and replicable system to create “coral banks” around the world.

While the reasons for storing coral fragments in liquid nitrogen may be the thing of science fantasy, the actual knowledge gleaned from projects like this could have benefits in other fields like medicine, or in real conservation work to help a reef recover more quickly after damage from a hurricane.

Oddly, the PBS video ends with a headline that there is a coral reef in 600-3,000 ft of water in the Atlantic that is 3 times the size of Yellowstone National Park! Wait, you just told us coral reefs are slowly dying, and now you are saying there is a massive, very alive coral reef in the deep and cold ocean?!

Normally, corals need sunlight to fuel the symbiotic zooxanthellae algae that live amongst them. These algae give corals their color, and will leave when stressed, turning the corals bright pink to white, hence the phrase “coral bleaching.” Apparently these deepwater corals survive just fine without the zooxanthellae.

Did you catch that about coral bleaching? It can be a stress indicator with shallow water corals, but it doesn’t mean they are dead. The PBS story quickly mentions this, and just as quickly moves on, because “coral bleaching” is a scary phrase that needs to stay tied to their false narrative of “climate change” resulting from fossil fuel generated CO2.

The misuses of naturally-occurring coral bleaching are legion among the doomsayers. A great example comes from John Brewer Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. A famous 2022 photo in The Guardian shows a mostly-bleached coral near the reef’s surface. “It’s depressing to think about,” says Dr. Terry Hughes, who in 2017 was lead author of a paper in the journal Nature that fits the “coral bleaching is global warming” false narrative.

Thankfully, facts still matter to some, like Dr. Jennifer Marohasy, a Senior Fellow at the Melbourne-based think-tank, the Institute of Public Affairs. Just a year after The Guardian article, Marohasy took her 50 years of ocean experience out to John Brewer Reef to check on the now-famous coral patch. As you can see in this video she made, the coral patch is now doing just fine, as are most of the corals on John Brewer Reef.

Rather than get emotional about unprovable doomsday fantasies, real scientists like Marohasy verify the claims the doomsayers make by simply observing the real world. And the real world tells a different, and much more positive story! The real story is that coral lives in a harsh and highly variable environment, and can handle a lot of stresses. Yes, we can do very bad things to coral reefs, like these fools from China who allegedly poisoned a coral reef with cyanide just so fishermen from the Philippines couldn’t use it. We need to steward coral reefs well, constantly reevaluating our efforts to find the best balance between too much protection and not enough conservation

https://cornwallalliance.org/pbs-and-the-false-narrative-of-slowly-dying-coral-reefs/

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Methane cuts on track for 2030 emissions goal

This concern about methane is nonsense. Water vapour blocks all the frequencies that methane does so the presence of methane adds nothing

Australia’s methane emissions have decreased over the past two decades, according to a new report by a leading global carbon research group.

While the world’s methane emissions grew by 20 per cent, meaning two thirds of methane in the atmosphere is from human activity, Australasia and Europe emitted lower levels of the gas.

It puts Australia in relatively good stead, compared to 150 other signatories, to meet its non-binding commitments to the Global Methane Pledge, which aims to cut methane emissions by 30 per cent by the end of the decade.

The findings were revealed in the fourth global methane budget, published by the Global Carbon Project, with contributions from 66 research institutions around the world, including the CSIRO.

According to the report, agriculture contributed 40 per cent of global methane emissions from human activities, followed by the fossil fuel sector (34 per cent), solid waste and waste­water (19 per cent), and biomass and biofuel burning (7 per cent).

Pep Canadell, CSIRO executive director for the Global Carbon Project, said government policies and a smaller national sheep flock were the primary reasons for the lower methane emissions in Australasia.

“We have seen higher growth rates for methane over the past three years, from 2020 to 2022, with a record high in 2021. This increase means methane concentrations in the atmosphere are 2.6 times higher than pre-­industrial (1750) levels,” Dr Canadell said.

The primary source of methane emissions in the agriculture sector is from the breakdown of plant matter in the stomachs of sheep and cattle.

It has led to controversial calls from some circles for less red meat consumption, outraging the livestock industry, which has lowered its net greenhouse gas emissions by 78 per cent since 2005 and is funding research into methane reduction.

Last week, the government agency advising Anthony Albanese on climate change suggested Australians could eat less red meat to help reduce emissions. And the government’s official dietary guidelines will be amended to incorporate the impact of certain foods on climate change.

There is ongoing disagreement among scientists and policymakers about whether there should be a distinction between biogenic methane emitted by livestock, which already exists in a balanced cycle in plants and soil and the atmosphere, and methane emitted from sources stored deep underground for millennia.

“The frustration is that methane, despite its source, gets lumped into one bag,” Cattle Australia vice-president Adam Coffey said. “Enteric methane from livestock is categorically different to methane from coal-seam gas or mining-related fossil fuels that has been dug up from where it’s been stored for millennia and is new to the atmosphere.

“Why are we ignoring what modern climate science is telling us, which is these emissions are inherently different?”

Mr Coffey said the methane budget report showed the intense focus on the domestic industry’s environmental credent­ials was overhyped.

“I think it’s based mainly on ideology and activism,” Mr Coffey said.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/methane-cuts-on-track-for-2030-emissions-goal/news-story/158452c7e44f9cd17288498f97b65dda

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

Can a Closed Nuclear Power Plant From the ’70s Be Brought Back to Life?

When Michigan mothballed the Palisades nuclear power plant in 2022, the facility looked like a perfect relic of nuclear power’s 1970s heyday. Walls were painted salmon pink and pale green. Control panels had analog dials, manual switches and hundreds of lights that flash green or red to indicate on or off. The valves, levers and ductwork in the turbine room gave off a steampunk vibe.

Just two years later, the 53-year-old plant’s owners are implementing a historic decision to give it another go.

The federal government and the state of Michigan are spending nearly $2 billion to restart the reactor on the shores of Lake Michigan. When it reopens, Palisades will become the first decommissioned nuclear plant anywhere to be put back to work.

Driving the rethink: soaring demand for electricity from AI server farms, and billions on offer in state and federal loans and tax subsidies for nuclear energy in infrastructure and green power investment programs. Data centers alone are projected to account for 8% of U.S. electricity demand by 2030, up from around 3% in 2022, according to an April report by Goldman Sachs.

For years, it’s been cheaper to generate electricity with natural gas, and big sections of the public have been uncomfortable with nuclear power, after devastating accidents at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan.

That feeling has shifted, with a revived understanding of nuclear energy as green power that could add to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydropower. Nuclear-produced electricity is also seen as more consistent than wind or solar.

Stricter state and federal emissions laws have added costs to fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal, and the financial support from Washington and states has helped shift the balance toward nuclear.

Last year, the state of Georgia fired up two brand new reactors at its Vogtle complex, aided in part by up to $12 billion in federal loan guarantees. Earlier this year, Bill Gates, the former head of Microsoft, broke ground on a next-generation nuclear plant in Wyoming.

Utilities have asked regulators to extend the licenses of 14 aging reactors in the past year. Nearly all of the nation’s 94 operating reactors have already had their licenses extended once, to 60 years, and two have been extended to 80 years—twice as long as the original licenses.

While nuclear plants in some countries have temporarily closed for repairs or for economic reasons and then been turned back on, no other reactor has begun the decommissioning process and then been restarted, according to the World Nuclear Association, a nuclear industry trade group based in London.

Some say reviving decommissioned plants is a faster and less expensive way to add to energy capacity. Building a new plant could take more than a decade, while the Palisades reopening is targeted for October 2025, around a year and a half after the restart process began. And the process of creating electricity from nuclear energy hasn’t fundamentally changed. Palisades’ owners believe the plant can reopen and operate for at least another 25 years.

There are 22 nuclear reactors undergoing decommissioning in the U.S., a process that itself can take decades to complete, according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A handful of those reactors, such as Three Mile Island’s Unit No. 1—the undamaged reactor next to the unit that partially melted down in 1979 in America’s worst nuclear accident—might be suitable to reopen, according to industry officials.

https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/biden-nuclear-power-plant-loan-michigan-eee64904

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

India Accentuates Coal Reliance in its New Economic Policy Brief

Most discussions of India’s annual budget are being dominated by the increased taxation of the middle class. But many media entities—both in India and the West—overlooked the country’s decision to increase its coal consumption.

An economic survey released as a prelude to the financial budget often indicates the country’s future direction in various areas of governance, including energy and environment. This year’s survey—like those in the previous years—clearly indicates that the country will neither reduce its consumption of coal nor back away from its commitment to the economic development that requires affordable and plentiful energy for hundreds of millions of people.

Future is Coal

Coal dominates India’s energy landscape, comprising over 55% of the nation’s primary commercial supply. In the power sector, coal’s role is even more pronounced, with coal-fired plants generating approximately 70% of India’s electricity. It is also a critical source for various manufacturers, including those of steel, sponge iron, cement and paper.

With the country’s energy demand projected to at least double by 2047, the survey makes clear that coal will remain the backbone of India’s energy mix for an extended period.

“Despite being one of the fastest-growing economies in the world, India’s annual per capita carbon emission is only about one-third of the global average,” said the survey in an apparent rejection of Western criticisms of Indian emissions of carbon dioxide, the bogeyman of climate extremists.

In addition, the survey says, “India’s dependence on petroleum imports should not be replaced by dependence on solar photovoltaic panel imports.” It recommended a balanced response to climate change and criticized policies making reduction of emissions a top priority at the expense of development.

The Indian government also took the opportunity to criticize carbon import taxes levied on its products by the European Union. The survey points out the hypocrisy of developed nations criticizing India’s CO2 emissions while simultaneously increasing their own emissions and fossil fuel consumption. This paradoxical behavior is labeled a “comedy.”

No Way but Coal

At 35 quadrillion Btu (British Thermal Units), India’s primary energy consumption is the third highest in the world. The country is also the third biggest consumer of electricity. As the world’s fifth-largest economy and home to over 1.4 billion people, India’s energy consumption is projected to more than double by 2040. The International Energy Agency forecasts that India will account for nearly one-quarter of global energy demand growth from 2019 to 2040.

Recent data from the Central Electricity Authority (CEA) shows that coal-fired power generation has been steadily increasing. In the fiscal year 2022-23, coal-based power plants generated 1,043 billion units of electricity, about 10% more than the previous year.

This upward trend has continued into 2023-24, with coal power generation reaching 919 billion units in just the first eight months of the fiscal year. In fact, CEA has said that coal will continue to be the dominant source of power generation at 54% by 2030.

The rate of growth in the production of coal in the country during the past three years has been the New coal mine approvals earlier this year not only boosted production but also generated 40,560 jobs.

India’s enthusiasm for coal is driven by several factors: abundant domestic coal reserves, the need for reliable and affordable energy to fuel industrial growth and concerns about energy security. The significant budget allocations for coal production, infrastructure, and technology reflect a pragmatic approach to meeting the nation’s growing energy demands and supporting its ambitious economic goals.

The only sensible thing left for India to do is stop wasting time and resources on so-called renewables so as not to jeopardize its energy security. Besides, not even an unprecedented increase in wind and solar capacity would dethrone coal as the primary energy source.

https://co2coalition.org/2024/08/20/india-accentuates-coal-reliance-in-its-new-economic-policy-brief/

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

California County activists oppose offshore wind projects. So they’re taking fight to national level

There’s a new national group fighting offshore wind development — and you may recognize some of their members.

Two San Luis Obispo County anti-offshore wind activists have founded an organization called NOOA, the National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance. So far, the group includes at least seven environmental and fishing organizations from the East and West coasts, according to President Mandy Davis.

“As a united alliance, we will have a more powerful voice with greater opportunity for public engagement, media visibility and potential for having a voice in our government’s direction on the efficacy of offshore wind,” Davis wrote in an email to The Tribune.

The group opposes any offshore wind development in the Great Lakes or the ocean, she said.

Davis also founded the local non-profit REACT Alliance, which formed to fight offshore turbines planned for the 376-square-mile Morro Bay Wind Energy Area about 20 miles away from Cambria and San Simeon.

Though Davis serves as the president of both organizations, the groups have separate purposes: one to fight offshore wind development locally and the other nationally.

NOOA will educate the public about the impact of offshore wind while fighting for restrictions on development.

“We need to share resources, we need to share information, we need to come together so we have a much larger and much more powerful voice with the media, with government, with the public,” Davis said Wednesday. “It’s simple — there is power in numbers.”

Davis intentionally gave the organization a similar name to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, she said.

“It was done as a bit of a poke at NOAA,” Davis said. “The majority of us that are working to fight offshore wind feel that NOAA isn’t protecting our oceans — especially as it relates to offshore wind.”

The National Offshore-wind Opposition Alliance has had two meetings so far, according to Davis.

Group membership includes REACT Alliance, Protect the Coast Pacific Northwest, the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, Green Oceans, Protect Our Coast New Jersey, Protect Our Coast Long Island New York and the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Davis said.

“We are growing on a daily basis,” she said.

The group is governed by nine board members, including Davis and local attorney and Cafe Roma owner Saro Rizzo.

The alliance will not accept donations from the fossil fuel industry or advocate for other energy sources, Davis said. The group will apply to form a non-profit, she said.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/slo-county-activists-oppose-offshore-wind-projects-so-they-re-taking-fight-to-national-level/ar-AA1pgqFp

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems, peer-reviewed paper says

According to a peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology in May 2024, “Carbon dioxide and a warming climate are not problems.”

The authors, Andy May and Marcel Crok, argue that the sceptical position on dangerous man-made climate change is supported by a comprehensive literature review.

In other words, those who are disparagingly labelled by the establishment as “climate change deniers” have credible evidence on their side.

Writing an overview of their paper, May and Crok said:

The case that human greenhouse gas emissions (mainly carbon dioxide) control the climate as claimed in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) or that the resulting climate change is dangerous, is very weak.

How do we show that assertion is weak? There are many options. The AR6 WGI [Working Group I] and WGII reports define climate change as the global warming since 1750 or 1850.

The Little Ice Age, a phrase rarely used in AR6, extends from about 1300 to 1850. It was a very cold and miserable time for humanity, with a lot of well-documented extreme weather in the historical record from all over the Northern Hemisphere. It was also a time of frequent famines and pandemics. We show that arguably today’s climate is better than then, not worse.

The main argument made in May and Crok’s paper is that the evidence presented by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) to support the claim that human-caused climate change is dangerous is not convincing.

Firstly, the IPCC claims that human greenhouse gas emissions are the “main driver” of warming since 1979, but this is disputed.

Natural climate oscillations like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (“AMO”) can explain a significant portion of the 20th century warming.

The AMO is a cyclic phenomenon of sea surface temperature (“SST”) anomalies in the North Atlantic Ocean. It has a significant impact on global weather patterns. The theoretical measure of the variability of the SST of the North Atlantic Ocean is called the AMO index.

The AMO index oscillates between positive and negative phases. During the positive phase, the North Atlantic Ocean experiences warm SSTs, while during the negative phase, SSTs are cooler. The AMO index is associated with shifts in hurricane activity, rainfall patterns and intensity, as well as changes in fish populations.

In their paper, May and Crok “detrend” the AMO index, i.e. plot the raw data rather than show the data as a trend line, and compare it to the UK Met Office’s HadCRUT4 detrended records (see below).

The paper noted:

There are several key features displayed in Figure 2. First, we observe that the secular trend in the AMO of 0.3°C is about 30% of the warming observed globally in the 20th century.

Next we observe that the warming period from 1980 to 2005 coincides with an upturn in the AMO index. The AMO index has been traced to 1567AD, thus it is a natural oscillation.

These observations cast some doubt on the AR6 claim that all 20th century warming is due to human influence and there is no net natural impact. The second feature we will point out in Figure 2 is that the full AMO climate cycle is 60-70 years, and it matches the estimated global temperature changes in the 20th century.

Secondly, the IPCC’s evidence for human influence, such as the “atmospheric fingerprint,” is disputed and the statistical methods used are questioned. Climate models also have issues, overestimating tropical tropospheric warming compared to observations.

The paper raises questions about the statistical methodology used by the IPCC to justify the “anthropogenic fingerprint” and argues that the statistical underpinnings of the anthropogenic fingerprint are seriously flawed.

The paper also discusses discrepancies between climate models and observations, particularly in the tropical troposphere. It points out that most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (“CMIP”) and IPCC climate models overestimate warming in the tropical middle troposphere by a statistically significant amount.

May and Crok argue that there is no clear evidence of unusual or dangerous weather or climate events that can be definitively attributed to human-caused climate change.

It cites trends in extreme weather events like hurricanes and droughts, which are either flat or declining, as well as declining economic losses from weather disasters as a fraction of GDP. This lack of clear evidence challenges the IPCC’s conclusions about the direct impact of human activities on extreme weather events.

In conclusion, the authors note that climate change, whether natural or human-caused, has both benefits and costs, but the IPCC only examines the downside risks and ignores the potential benefits, such as increased plant growth from higher CO2 levels.

https://principia-scientific.com/carbon-dioxide-and-a-warming-climate-are-not-problems-peer-reviewed-paper-says/

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

The Atmospheric Chicken-or-Egg Question

by David Legates

The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is an age-old question. It is a metaphor to describe situations where it isn’t clear which is the cause and which is the effect when two interrelated events are considered.

Aristotle first pondered the question in the fourth century B.C. and concluded it was an infinite sequence with no real answer. But Plutarch wrote in the first century A.D. that this question was as important as whether the world had a beginning.

But in the world of climate science, we often ask, “which comes first, the change in air temperature, or a change in greenhouse gas concentrations?”

Since the dawn of climate change alarmism, we have been told that carbon dioxide is the driver of climate change; for scientists in this camp, it is the climate control knob. Increase carbon dioxide, and consequently, air temperature increases. Decrease the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide—and methane and nitrous oxide—global warming will be abated. For the climate alarmists, it’s just that simple.

Or is it? Many climatologists have noted that carbon dioxide is not the climate change driver alarmists purport it to be. A recent article in the Epoch Times suggests that a fixation on carbon dioxide ignores the real drivers of air temperature, which include the Sun and natural variability. But the idea that carbon dioxide is somehow the climate change control knob is an integral part of the climate alarmist narrative.

And despite evidence to the contrary, this narrative always must be pushed. For example, in 2007, Laurie David and Cambria Gordon published a book entitled The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming. It was billed as “from the producer of [Al Gore’s] An Inconvenient Truth comes a powerful, kid-friendly, and engaging book that will get kids get interested in the environment!”

On page 18, a flap instructs children to “lift to see how well carbon dioxide and temperature go together.” The graph that becomes exposed shows that as time passes over the last 650,000 years, “the more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed…the less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell…by connecting rising carbon dioxide to rising temperature[,] scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution and global warming.”

The figure hidden by the flap is from an article in Science by Fischer and colleagues in 1999. The problem is that the axes are mislabeled in The Down-to-Earth Guide—the air temperature axis is labelled “Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere” while the carbon dioxide axis is labelled “climate temperature”. As the article in Science noted, “High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased…six hundred plus-or-minus four hundred years after the warming of the last three deglaciations.” As Fischer and colleagues noted, air temperature leads; carbon dioxide follows.

After this mislabeling of axes was disclosed, Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University weighed in on the issue. He wrote,

“I have reviewed the figure on page 18 of The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming. It appears that the labeling of the axes has been reversed. As a result, the curve labeled ‘carbon dioxide concentration’ should be labeled ‘climate temperature’, and vice versa. However, the description of the figure in the accompanying text is accurate, and it fairly represents the current state of scientific knowledge, in terms that would be comprehensible to children 8-years of age or older.”

Remember that the description of the figure is that “the more the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature climbed…the less carbon dioxide, the more the temperature fell…by connecting rising carbon dioxide to rising temperature[,] scientists have discovered the link between greenhouse-gas pollution and global warming.” This is patently false and children aged 8 and older would easily be able to understand that.

In the intervening quarter-of-a-decade since Fischer and colleagues’ article in Science, research has confirmed that carbon dioxide follows and does not lead atmospheric air temperature. A subsequent article in Science showed that carbon dioxide concentrations followed air temperature by a period of less than a thousand years while another article in Science concluded that “the carbon dioxide increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years”. Both are consistent with the original estimates by Fischer and colleagues.

In 2007, a review paper concluded that little evidence exists that greenhouse gases “have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes.” Yet another paper in Science that year wrote that the East Antarctica ice core “shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with air temperature].”

A more recent study concluded that “changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration did not cause temperature change in the ancient climate”. In 2017, geochemist Euan Mearns commented that “It is quite clear from the data that carbon dioxide follows temperature with highly variable time lags depending on whether the climate is warming or cooling” and “carbon dioxide in the past played a negligible role [in determining temperature] … it simply responded to bio-geochemical processes caused by changing temperature and ice cover.”

Mearns’ comment is especially important when understanding why carbon dioxide responds to changes in air temperature. During colder periods, oceans absorb more carbon dioxide due to the high solubility of carbon dioxide in cold ocean water at higher latitudes where sinking cold sea-water sequesters it in the deep ocean. When the planet warms, oceans outgas this absorbed carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Although plants grow faster in a warmer and more carbon-dioxide-rich environment, and thereby use more carbon dioxide, the ocean reservoir is about sixty-five times larger than that of the biosphere.

But what about changes in carbon dioxide on shorter time scales? If changes in global air temperature drives changes in carbon dioxide on the century-to-millennial scale, could a change in carbon dioxide on a decadal-to-century scale affect global air temperatures?

To answer this question, I would encourage you to read my chapter, Chapter 8, in Cal Beisner’s and my new book, Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism by Regnery Publishing. In that chapter, I outline that the first two-hundred-eighty parts per million of carbon dioxide, as well as all other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, accounts for the absorption of about ninety percent of the thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. A doubling of carbon dioxide with no increase in the other greenhouse gases could at most absorb only an additional ten percent or only one-nineth of the amount currently absorbed by atmospheric gases. But through numerical simulations, a doubling of carbon dioxide will cause the absorption of only about one-ninetieth of the amount absorbed by the first two-hundred-eighty parts per million. That amounts to less than about one degree Celsius.

For more than a decade now, I and others have been arguing that carbon dioxide is not a magic climate change control knob. Rather than being a pollutant in the planetary system, carbon dioxide is food for plants—simply put, they grow better and faster under enhanced carbon dioxide concentrations. Thriving vegetation is good news for animal life and humans as well. We must stop the demonization of carbon dioxide and embrace its effects as the whole biosphere benefits from the additional carbon dioxide.

https://cornwallalliance.org/the-atmospheric-chicken-or-egg-question/

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

Net Zero Is a Zero

Our government, and a number of other Western governments, are committed to a goal of “net zero.” That is, our countries will add nothing further to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any emissions of CO2 (e.g., breathing) will be balanced by absorption of CO2 by, e.g., plants. Various dates are specified in these aspirational statements, none of them realistic. And of course, the world’s main sources of atmospheric CO2 (China and India now account for most of the world’s CO2 emissions) have no intention of cutting their CO2 emissions, let alone cutting them to net zero.

But suppose we did it. Suppose we spent countless trillions, destroyed our electric grid and reduced our standard of living to a pre-industrial level. How much would an American “net zero” affect global temperatures?

This paper by three of the world’s leading scientists, Richard Lindzen, William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden, of MIT, Princeton and York University respectively, undertakes a mathematical calculation to answer that question:

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).

See the link for the mathematics. One important factor is that CO2 is relatively saturated in the atmosphere. Each incremental addition of CO2 adds less and less warming:

The proportionality of the temperature increment ∆T to the logarithm of the concentration ratio C/C0 means that the warming from increased CO2 concentrations C is “saturated.” That is, each increment dC of CO2 concentration causes less warming than the previous equal increment. Greenhouse warming from CO2 is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Dr. Happer has commented on the paper:

“This is something anybody with a calculator can figure out,” said [Dr. Happer], who may be best known for his contribution to a laser-based technology for destroying incoming ballistic missiles as part of the so-called Star Wars program of the 1980s.
***
Noting that others using different approaches have come to conclusions similar to the paper’s, Dr. Happer said he and his coauthors wanted to show that the controversial subject of climate change need not be complicated.

“More members of the public should understand that they are being victimized by false information disseminated by those whose interests have more to do with money and power than with environmental concerns,” he said. “Answers found in relatively simple mathematics strongly suggest this to be the case.”

I think that is right. “Green” forces are trying to engineer the biggest transfer of wealth since the Industrial Revolution, shifting trillions of dollars out of some industries (and out of the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers) and into their favored industries. There is nothing noble about this effort. On the contrary, it is a contemptible attempt to stop the progress of history and condemn billions to permanent poverty. It also will have no perceptible effect on the Earth’s climate, as real scientists–not the “climate scientists” who so often have their fingers in the till–have been arguing for a long time.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/08/net-zero-is-a-zero.php

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

So About Those Oceans That Were Just About to Boil Away...

Stephen Green

It seems like only last year [it was only last year, Steve —Editor] that we were all going to die because the oceans were literally figuratively boiling away. I'm not sure whether it was the massive amounts of steam that were supposed to kill us or the resulting Sharknado. I just know that whatever the oceans are doing, it's a VERY BAD THING, even though the Great Barrier Reef seems to love it. Seriously, the GBR is in better shape than it's been in for years.

But now, "surface ocean temperatures are plunging rapidly around the world with scientists reported to be puzzled at the speed of the recent decline, according to Chris Morrison at The Daily Sceptic this week. "Less puzzlement was to be found when the oceans were ‘boiling’ during the last two years," Morrison dryly noted.

When things are getting worse, climate scientists enjoy the certainty of knowing exactly what's going on and why. When the trend lines improve, it's a much less newsworthy mystery.

"Until recently, the surface sea temperature (SST) graph below showing measurements up the Arctic and down to Antarctica was rarely out of the public prints... This year the temperature shown by the black line flatlined until April compared with the substantial rise in orange for 2023. It then fell more sharply than last year and is now 0.2°C lower."

You can play with the interactive chart here if you like.

For whatever reason, ocean temps are up a full degree Celsius or so since the mid-'80s but 2024 is showing cooling like we've never seen before. Then again, if our data only goes back to the mid-'80s, how much do we really know about oceans that are billions of years old, and surround continents that slowly drift around?

As I wrote way back in 2014, before we start panicking, a few questions need to be answered in this order:

Is whatever is going on detrimental or beneficial to the human habitat?

Do we understand the how and the why?

Do we have the technical means and know-how to make things better instead of worse?

We're still iffy on big parts of the first question, but we have a lot of people in Washington and other places telling us that we need to tax and regulate as though we have perfect answers to all three.

Let's go back to the Great Barrier Reef for a moment. In 2016 the GBR was pronounced dead at the ripe old age of 25 million, but by 2022 parts of it showed the highest coral cover in 36 years. Last year the panicmongers had to admit that "the truth is complex." This would be a great time for climate scientists to admit that on the Rumsfeld Epistemological Scale when it comes to how our planet works, we still have a great many unknown unknowns. But don't hold your breath.

The only certain thing for sure, as Lyle Lovett once sang, is that whatever is going on, it's the worst thing ever and it's because of something you did, comrade.

You can also be sure that the freezing oceans will be what kills us next.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2024/08/29/so-about-those-oceans-that-were-just-about-to-boil-away-n4932080

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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

CO2 Has Been Indicted by Consensus, Not Real Science or Critical Thinking

I have spent most of my 81 years trying to combat scientific wooden heads so I strongly endorse the article below -- JR

When asking those who believe that CO2 is a major climate antagonist to make their strongest argument, their most common response is: “CO2 has been identified as the primary Climate culprit by the majority of experts (e.g., climatologists) and scientific organizations (e.g., the IPCC).” This is clearly a consensus claim.

I’ve repeatedly warned that one of the major fights we are in, is to defend genuine Science, as its enemies are actively trying to replace it with political science. This situation is a dead giveaway, as consensus is the currency of politics, NOT Science!

Put another way, the claim of consensus is deference to authority. They are saying don’t ask any questions! Just be quiet as others know a lot more about this matter than you do. Further, they continue, it’s not possible that all those experts would be lying to us!

Both of these are very reasonable viewpoints. However, whether or not they should end the conversation is the question. Let’s look at a recent very close Science parallel for enlightenment. Here is a layperson’s history of what happened…

— — — —

There are roughly 8 Billion people on the planet who periodically experience stomach ailments (i.e., gastrointestinal distress). The concern often is: will these common human pains turn into something much more major — like an ulcer?

An ulcer is a perforation of the stomach lining, which is a serious matter, and there are about 4 Million cases of these in the US, every year — so it is relatively common.

For nearly 200 years the medical establishment believed that stomach ulcers (technically peptic ulcers) were caused by stress. The hypothesis was that stress produced excess (gastric) acid in the stomach, which (in turn) eventually ate away some of the stomach’s lining. (The first connection between these was made in 1822.)

In this case when I say “medical establishment” I mean worldwide 100% of relevant PhDs, MDs, RNs, PAs, etc.

Also 100% of hospitals (like the Mayo Clinic and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center). Also 100% of universities and medical schools (like Johns Hopkins and Yale). Also 100% of medical textbooks.

Also 100% of medical journals (like the Lancet and NE Journal of Medicine). Also 100% of medical organizations (like the American Medical Association and American Gastroenterological Association).

Also 100% of government medical agencies (like the FDA, CDC, DOH). Also 100% of pharmaceutical companies (like Pfizer and Merck). This was also the position of the MD’s bible: the Physician’s Desk Reference…

As a point of reference, the combined number of worldwide medical experts here is roughly a hundred times the amount of worldwide anti-CO2 experts.

They were ALL wrong!

The basic reason that these many thousands of highly educated people were wrong, is that none of them actually applied the Scientific Method to the accepted and sensibly sounding hypothesis about the cause of stomach ulcers! Instead of taking the time and effort to perform a genuine Scientific assessment of this common worldwide issue, they relied on intuition — plus the fact that other experts were on board. (This is very similar to what is going on regarding Climate and the faulting of CO2.)

What’s the Truth?

The Truth regarding stomach ulcers was discovered when two Australian scientists (Dr. Robin Warren and Dr. Barry Marshall) decided to apply the Scientific Method (!) to the medical establishment’s ulcer hypothesis. (Note that what we still have regarding CO2 is a scientifically unproven hypothesis as to its full relationship with Climate.)

The short story is that in 1982 Drs Warren and Marshall proved that most stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria: H. pylori — NOT stress-induced excess acid production! Note that this scientific finding is not even remotely similar to the stress/acid hypothesis that tens of thousands of medical experts had fully bought into, for many decades…

This was a VERY BIG DEAL. This NIH study says about their work: “Advances in drug therapy for peptic ulcer have had a significant impact on quality of life and work potential of many millions of affected persons and have contributed to a remarkable decrease in the prevalence of the disease, frequency, and severity of complications, hospitalizations, and mortality.”

Why this Catastrophic Failure of Experts?

This failure is particularly hard to understand regarding pharmaceutical companies, which have thousands of qualified experts (e.g., PhD Biologists and Chemists). Why didn’t those scientists figure out the truth through scientific experiments, since they have the experts, labs, and money?

Because, exactly like the IPCC, they started with an unproven assumption. In this case, it was that excess acid was causing most ulcers (and that stress was causing the acid)… A cynic would say that there is a second major reason: they didn’t want to get to the Truth, as that was not in their financial best interest!

In any case, following the unproven ulcer hypothesis, pharmaceutical companies produced two types of “solutions”: 1) drugs to reduce stress (anti-anxiety meds like Xanax and Valium) plus 2) drugs to reduce stomach acid (Nexium, Tums, etc.). But neither of these do anything meaningful to address the primary cause of ulcers!

There is an exact parallel with industrial wind energy and solar proposed (by experts) as “solutions” for the climate issue, as neither of those has genuine scientific proof that they work (i.e., save a consequential amount of CO2).

What happened after this Discovery?

What followed Drs. Warren’s and Marshall’s published peer-reviewed study is also instructive.

To begin with, there was great skepticism by the medical establishment (aka the “experts” who have been wrong for many years).

In 1996 (14 years after Drs. Warren’s and Marshall’s findings were published and verified) the FDA finally approved the first antibiotic for treatment of ulcer disease.

In a 1997 study (15 years after their findings were published and verified), data show that about 75 percent of ulcer patients were still treated primarily with antacid type medications, and only 5 percent receive antibiotic therapy!

This shows the powerful resistance by “experts” to accept the Truth — especially when it exposes the fact that said experts were totally WRONG, for decades…

Prompted by this study, in 1997 the CDC, with other government agencies, academic institutions, and industry, launched a national education campaign to inform health-care providers and consumers about the link between the H. pylori bacteria and ulcers.

Drs. Warren and Marshall subsequently won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Medicine for following the Science.

What’s the Takeaway?

Please reflect on the original question: can tens of thousands of well-educated experts, universities, medical journals, textbooks, medical organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies, be dead wrong? Absolutely YES!!!

Is this because they are ignorant? (Not in general, but they certainly were ignorant about how Science works.) Is this due to a conspiracy? (Hard to say.)

Summary: the experts were wrong as they lazily went with intuition, plus the comfort of consensus of their peers Furthermore, they decided it was too much trouble to apply scientific rigor via the Scientific Method to their ulcer hypothesis. Lastly, for some of the medical experts, it was in their financial interest to not reveal the truth.

Today we have an almost identical situation with the hypothesis against CO2…

https://criticallythinking.substack.com/p/co2-has-been-indicted-by-consensus

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

The coming ‘power supply crisis’ in America

The USA and other nations are closing coal and natural gas power plants in pursuit of net-zero emissions and are approaching a critical point where the lights will start to flicker every night when there is no sunshine and the wind is low.

The subsidized and mandated wind and solar-generated electricity that is intermittent is displacing, but not replacing, the continuously uninterruptible generated electricity via fossil fuels.

America’s reliance on UNRELIABLE generated electricity from wind and solar is a fool’s game.

Led by California, the fourth largest economy in the world, as well as Britain, Germany, and South America, have passed the critical “tipping point,” and they survive by importing power from neighboring states and shedding power-intensive industries. Isolated grids like Australia and Texas are seriously at risk.

U.S. Policymakers are oblivious to the fact that people use CONTINUOUS electricity for lighting, heating, cooling, and refrigeration and for operating appliances, computers, electronics, machinery, and public transportation systems.

There are several needs for CONTINUOUS and UNINTERRUPTIBLE electricity that wind and solar CANNOT provide. For safety, security, and life support, here are a few that need CONTINUOUS electricity:

Computers
Communications
Telemetry
Datacenters
Airports
Air Traffic control
Hospitals

In addition to our personal consumption of electricity, there is massive demand from smelters, heavy industry, and the burgeoning use of AI and cloud storage for data centers. Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute claims that the cloud is on the way to becoming the biggest infrastructure project in human history. Two years ago, Mr. Mills reported that the cloud was consuming twice as much electricity as Japan, the world’s third-largest economy.

It is incomprehensible that American policymakers are adopting goals to move to 100 percent “clean” ELECTRICITY by 2050. The elephant in the room that no policymaker understands nor wants to discuss is that:

The nameplate generation capacity (installed capacity vs actual generation) of both solar and wind equipment is a total farce. Time of day solarization and the vagaries of weather determine the power output of both systems; this has no relationship whatsoever with the nameplate capacity value. As these systems also exhibit frequent mechanical failures due to wear and damage from weather conditions, they should be subject to penalties for periods of inactivity. Further, they should be subject to additional penalties for failure to provide adequate backup generation during periods when there is no sun illumination or the wind speed level is inadequate.

A 3-minute video on How Wind Turbines are Built is a MUST viewing, especially since all those efforts and materials are for the generation of electricity dependent on breezes that do not work most of the time! Before we continue to fund the albatross idea of occasional electricity generated from wind, a worthwhile article that should be read is The Titanic scale of floating wind turbines quantified by David Wojick.

American policymakers setting “green” policies are oblivious to the reality that Electricity came AFTER the discovery of oil 200 years ago.

ALL electrical generation from hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar are ALL built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

All EVs, solar panels, and wind turbines are also built with the products, components, and equipment that are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Electricity is the lifeblood of modern society, alongside the incredible range of more than 6,000 petrochemical products.

https://www.americaoutloud.news/the-coming-power-supply-crisis-in-america/

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

UK Car Dealers Being Forced To Limit New ICE Car Sales

Car makers are rationing sales of new petrol and hybrid vehicles in Britain to avoid hefty ‘Net Zero’ fines, according to one of the country’s biggest dealership chains

The Telegraph has the story.

Robert Forrester, Chief Executive of Vertu Motors, said manufacturers were delaying deliveries of cars until next year amid fears they will otherwise breach quotas set for them by the Government.

This means someone ordering a car today at some dealerships will not receive it until February, he said.

At the same time, Mr. Forrester warned manufacturers and dealers were grappling with a glut of more expensive electric vehicles (EVs) that are “not easily finding homes”.

He said: “In some franchises there’s a restriction on supply of petrol cars and hybrid cars, which is actually where the demand is.

“It’s almost as if we can’t supply the cars that people want, but we’ve got plenty of the cars that maybe they don’t want.

“They [manufacturers] are trying to avoid the fines. So they’re constraining the ability for us to supply petrol cars in order to try and keep to the Government targets.”

The Chief Executive blamed the zero emission vehicle (ZEV) mandate, which requires at least 22 percent of cars sold by manufacturers to be electric from this year.

This target will gradually rise each year before reaching 80% in 2030, with manufacturers made to pay £15,000 for every petrol car that exceeds their quota – unless they have so-called carbon credits to spend.

But the scheme has prompted stark warnings from bosses at major brands, such as Vauxhall owner Stellantis and Ford, which have said they cannot sacrifice profits by selling EVs at large discounts indefinitely.

Instead, they have previously warned they may be forced to restrict petrol car supplies to artificially boost their ZEV mandate performance.

The warning from Vertu is the first confirmation that carmakers have now begun doing so….

Mr. Forrester said: “What the Government’s actually doing is constraining the new car market, which has a big impact on VAT receipts for them, and creates a business environment in the U.K. where manufacturers may question whether they want to make cars here.

“As Carlos Tavares [chief executive of Stellantis] has said, why should they sell cars at a loss because of U.K. Government policy?

“The new car market is no longer a market, unfortunately. It’s a state-imposed supply chain.”

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

The global warming fantasy versus conservation -- again

Mining for gold in Suriname Yolanda Ariadne Collins, CC BY-NC-ND
Illegal mining for critical minerals needed for the global renewable energy transition is increasingly driving deforestation in Indigenous lands in the Amazon.

In recent years, these illegal miners, who are often self-employed, mobile and working covertly, have expanded their gold mining operations to include cassiterite or “black gold”, a critical mineral essential for the renewable energy transition. Cassiterite is used to make coatings for solar panels, wind turbines and other electronic devices. Brazil, one of the world’s largest exporters of this mineral, is now scrambling to manage this new threat to its Amazon forests.

The need for developing countries such as Brazil to conserve their forests for the collective global good conflicts with the increasing demand for their resources from international markets. To complicate matters further, both the renewable energy transition and the conservation of the Amazon are urgent priorities in the global effort to arrest climate change.

But escalating deforestation puts these forests at risk of moving from a carbon sink – with trees absorbing more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release – to a carbon source, whereby trees release more carbon dioxide than they absorb as they degrade or are burnt.

Indigenous and other forest-dwelling communities are central to forest conservation. In 2014, I spent a year living in Guyana and Suriname, two of the nine countries that share the Amazon basin. I studied the effectiveness of international policies that aim to pay these countries to avoid deforestation.

I met with members of communities who were bearing the brunt of the negative effects of small-scale gold mining, such as mercury poisoning and loss of hunting grounds. For decades, mining for gold, which threatens communities’ food supply and traditional ways of life, has been the main driver of deforestation in both countries.

Small-scale mining operations can damage both communities and the natural world. Gold mining, which generates gold for export used for jewellery and electronics, usually begins with the removal of trees and vegetation from the topsoil, facilitated by mechanical equipment such as excavators. Next, the miners dig up sediment, which gets washed with water to extract any loose flecks of gold.

Miners usually then add mercury, a substance that’s known to be toxic and incredibly damaging to human health, to washing pans to bind the gold together and separate it from the sediment. They then burn the mercury away, using lighters and welding gear. During this process, mercury is inhaled by miners and washed into nearby waterways, where it can enter the food chain and poison fish and other species, including humans.

My new book, Forests of Refuge: Decolonizing Environmental Governance in the Amazonian Guiana Shield, highlights the colonial histories through which these countries were created. These histories continue to inform the land-use practices of people and forest users there. Having seen the dynamics firsthand, I argue that these unaddressed histories limit the effectiveness of international policies aimed at reducing deforestation.

Some of the policies’ limitations are rooted in their inattentiveness to the roughly five centuries of colonialism through which these countries were formed. These histories had seen forests act as places of refuge and resistance for Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities. I believe that power structures created by these histories need to be tackled through processes of decolonisation, which includes removing markets from their central place in processes of valuing nature, and taking seriously the worldviews of Indigenous and other forest-dependent communities.

But since 2014, small-scale mining-led deforestation in the Amazon has persisted, and even increased. The increase in mining worldwide, driven partly by the renewable energy transition, indicates that these power structures might be harder to shift than ever before.

Added pressure

When crackdowns on illegal gold mining took place in Brazil in the 1970s and ’80s, miners moved en masse to nearby Guyana and Suriname, taking their environmentally destructive technologies with them. Illegal miners of cassiterite are now following a similar pattern, showing that the global effort to reduce deforestation cannot simply focus on a single commodity as a driver of deforestation on the ground.

My work shows that the challenge of mining-led deforestation in the Amazon is rooted in historically informed, global power structures that position the Amazon and its resources as available for extraction by industries and governments in wealthier countries. These groups of people are now seeking to reduce their disproportionately high emissions through technological solutions and not through behavioural change.

These tensions also have roots in the readiness of governments and forest users in postcolonial countries, like Brazil and Guyana, to respond positively and unquestioningly to international demand for these resources.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/renewable-energy-demand-rises-mining-161321521.html?guccounter=1

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

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

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