Are Wildfires and CO2 Really Linked?
The mainstream climate discourse often insists that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is almost entirely driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels.
This belief is the foundation of global climate policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions.
However, recent evidence, such as the 2023 Canadian fire season, challenges this simplistic view. According to a study published in Nature, this single fire season released more CO2 than all but three countries emit annually.
While the study points the finger at greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a driver of these intense fires, a closer look reveals significant flaws in this argument, suggesting that our understanding of CO2’s role in climate dynamics is far more complex and nuanced than commonly portrayed.
The 2023 fire season in Canada was one of the most intense on record, with vast areas of forest burned in just a few months. The Nature study attributes the severity of these fires to increasing GHG concentrations, reinforcing the narrative that human activities are the primary driver of climate change. However, this interpretation is both reductive and misleading.
First, the sheer scale of CO2 emissions from this fire season, which surpasses the annual emissions of all but three countries, raises serious questions about the role of natural events in the global carbon cycle.
If a single fire season can release such a massive amount of CO2, it becomes clear that natural processes play a much larger role in atmospheric CO2 levels than the study acknowledges. This complicates the narrative that human activities are the sole or even primary contributors to the increase in atmospheric CO2.
The Nature study is flawed in its assumption that GHG concentrations directly drive fire intensity and frequency.
By attributing the Canadian wildfires primarily to rising CO2 levels, the study oversimplifies the complex interactions between climate, vegetation, and fire behavior.
This is not just a minor oversight but a fundamental flaw that undermines the study’s conclusions.
Contrary to the Nature study, a paper published in Forest Ecology and Management offers a more comprehensive view of the factors influencing fire regimes.
The paper from Forest Ecology and Management explores the historical fire regimes in California, revealing that the state’s forests experienced far more frequent and intense fires in the past than they do today, even at much lower levels of atmospheric CO2.
Before European settlement, particularly during the Medieval Warm Period (approximately 900 to 1300 AD), California’s forests burned at rates ranging from 4.5 to 12 million acres annually.
This contrasts sharply with modern figures, where recent fire seasons typically see around 1 to 2 million acres burned, despite CO2 levels being significantly higher today (over 420 ppm compared to around 280 ppm historically). The paper states…
Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is 88% of the total annual wildfire area in the entire US during a decade (1994–2004) characterized as “extreme” regarding wildfires. The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.
The paper underscores the point that blaming modern California, or Canada, wildfires on GHG concentrations is not only simplistic but also ignores the complex and multifaceted nature of fire ecology.
Historically, fire activity was driven by natural factors such as climate variability, vegetation patterns, and indigenous land management practices.
The fact that California experienced much more extensive fires in the past, when CO2 levels were far lower, makes it absurd to attribute today’s wildfires solely to rising GHGs.
The table below from the IPCC’s latest assessment report provides a clear visual representation of the varying levels of confidence in the projected changes for different climatic impact drivers (CIDs) across various time periods.
Specifically, when it comes to fire weather, the IPCC categorizes it under “Wet and Dry” climatic impact drivers, and notably, the figure indicates a “low confidence in direction of change.”
This means that the IPCC does not have sufficient evidence to confidently predict whether fire weather conditions will increase or decrease in the future.
Moreover, the figure shows no significant change projected for fire weather, either historically or in future scenarios. This lack of confidence in the direction of change undermines the narrative that GHG-induced climate change is directly linked to increasing wildfire frequency or intensity.
https://principia-scientific.com/are-wildfires-and-co2-really-linked/
********************************************Net Zero Plans Threaten Reliable Energy in the Great Lakes Region
The move towards net-zero goals threatens the reliability of the electric grid in the Great Lakes region, according to a new study published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Shorting the Great Lakes Grid: How Net Zero Plans Risk Energy Reliability analyzes the electricity plans of seven Great Lakes states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Policymakers across the country are pushing plans to transition to wind and solar for electricity generation in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions. In the Great Lakes region, 32 of the 38 major investor-owned utilities have pledged to get to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner.
The study points out that while policymakers in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania aren’t mandating the transition to net zero, those states still follow their neighbors’ path. Many of their major utilities are shuttering coal and petroleum plants while moving towards a greater reliance on wind and solar.
Wind and solar are weather-dependent and unreliable as a steady supply of electricity. If these sources fail to generate enough electricity, net-zero advocates often claim electricity can simply be purchased off the larger grid to make up for the shortfall. But as the study addresses, this plan only works if utilities in neighboring states aren’t all moving in the same disastrous direction.
Many grid operators have raised serious concerns about the readiness of current infrastructure to support these changes. The Midcontinent Independent Systems Operator, the grid operator for much of the Midwest, projects that by 2032, none of the five Great Lakes states in its area will have enough electricity capacity to meet demands.
“Aggressive net-zero energy policies pose serious risks to the reliability of our energy grid,” said Joshua Antonini, co-author of the study. “If we continue down this path, we should expect shortages and blackouts. Lawmakers and utilities must course correct and dismantle these harmful policies.”
Key recommendations from the study include:
Maintaining a diverse energy portfolio that includes reliable power sources, such as natural gas and nuclear.
Balancing environmental goals with basic energy needs.
Reevaluating incentive structures for utilities to ensure reliable, affordable electricity.
“The modern electric grid is an essential aspect of our modern lives,” explained Jason Hayes, co-author of the study and director of energy and environmental policy. “We all rely on it to turn on the lights, to keep food refrigerated, to warm us in the winter and cool us in the summer.”
***************************************************
Top North Sea Oil Field in Jeopardy After British Governmet Crackdown
One of the North Sea’s biggest oil field developments is in jeopardy after developers put the project on hold following a crackdown by Ed Miliband. The Telegraph has the details:
NEO Energy on Monday announced a slowdown of investment in various U.K. schemes, including the large Buchan Horst redevelopment, 93 miles off the coast of Aberdeen.
Buchan is the third-biggest upcoming North Sea project and is conservatively expected to yield about 70m barrels of oil, with peak production likely to hit about 35,000 barrels per day. It was expected to begin production in 2027.
But NEO claimed a tax raid and new consultation launched by the Labour Government had plunged the scheme into uncertainty.
Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, is working with Energy Secretary Mr. Miliband to increase the windfall tax on oil and gas businesses.
Mr. Miliband’s department is also reviewing the environmental assessment process for North Sea oil and gas developments in a consultation due to run until the spring.
This was announced last month in response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling which said the “scope 3” emissions – those that would indirectly result from a development, such as cars running on petrol – must be taken into account.
The ruling has already led the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero to announce it will not defend previous decisions to grant licences for the major Rosebank and Jackdaw developments in court – although these have not yet been revoked – with other North Sea operators also facing limbo while the Government decides what the ruling means for future schemes.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, and Mr. Miliband previously vowed not to grant any new oil and gas licences if they won power in July’s election.
The review has prompted the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, which handles development applications, to impose a temporary moratorium on applications that are already in motion as well, NEO Energy said.
The company said that combined with the harsher tax environment, this had implications for investment.
It added: “Against this uncertain backdrop, NEO and its owner HitecVision have taken the decision to materially slow down investment activities across all development assets in its portfolio.”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/09/02/top-north-sea-oil-field-in-jeopardy-after-miliband-crackdown/
**********************************************EV, go home – why I pulled the plug on my Tesla
Gemma Tognini
It’s not me, it’s you. Standing there, I whispered those words quietly under my breath as I shut the door and turned away, leaving the past behind me. Eighteen months together, the last six the most difficult if I was honest. What to do, though? When it’s not working, it’s not working and sometimes you’ve just got to call it. Just must accept when the music is over and move on.
So I did. I got rid of my Tesla. Gone are the days of charging anxiety. Being gaslit by an iPad on wheels that didn’t like the cold (it would lose charge when the temperature dropped) and took absolute liberty with the concept of fast charging.
Like I said, it wasn’t me, it was him. It. The car. The EV. The purveyor of emerald-coloured dreams that turned into a logistical nightmare and ultimately led me to re-embrace the world of sweet fossil fuel and its glorious reliability. Freedom, such sweet freedom.
For those of you joining this conversation for the first time, a quick recap. I have been, since early 2023, Australia’s least enthusiastic EV owner. I went down that road as a wide-eyed sweet child of summer. Literally. I picked up the car in February last year and initially was enamoured. It’s fast. Goes like a shower of the proverbial. Too clever by half. Seriously impressive.
And when the enthusiastic salesman said that, like me, he didn’t have the capacity to charge his car at home but reassured me it was no big deal, I ran head first into the mist.
He also said he’d driven his EV all the way from Sydney to Perth, blithely saying it just needed a little “planning ahead”. Who was I to argue? It was like he was straight from central casting, sent to lure me with honey-coated words about convenience and reliability and tax breaks.
I didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid. I bathed in it. Gargled it. Mainlined it into my veins. But it wasn’t long before I got mugged by reality; my traumatic search for a working charging station in the NSW Southern Highlands last May still haunts me. That was a brutal awakening. The relief I felt on that Saturday morning a few weeks back, charging my car in a shopping centre carpark for the last time? Palpable.
And yes, I am taking the proverbial out of myself in a spectacular way here, but there are so many truths to unpack from my experience in the past 18 months and I know I am no Lone Ranger here. I know it because many of you have written to me, many I’ve spoken to, and because of car dealers who will quietly tell you the same thing.
Electric vehicles are not the answer. They may be one answer, for one cohort of people.
But they’re not THE answer, the global (in a metaphorical sense) answer, and they are not the automotive messiah many zealots would have you believe, that government policy would have you believe.
They are not the answer to every question. Dissecting this very thing a few months back with some Canberra-based friends of the political persuasion, I observed that EVs were the perfect car for people who had mainly an inner-city, urban-based existence who didn’t go into the country much and who had the luxury of being able to charge their cars at home. All the ducks needed to line up for it to work.
My friend responded dryly – who do you think is designing government policy in this space?
I’m happy to hold my own experience up for ridicule and mockery. It’s a small price to pay, unlike the price of an EV, and unlike the cost benefit of running one.
When I ended my relationship with my Tesla, I did one final check of my car stats to find out how much I had saved in fuel costs across the past 12 months. A grand total of 524 bucks, so $42 a month.
New research reveals EV enthusiasts outnumbered by skeptics
Apart from the fact these days that will buy me a pack of loo paper and a bag of Doritos, if you offset that against the cost of my time spent sitting in carparks waiting for it to charge? Let me promise you, it’s a net negative. A significant one.
This country has enough productivity issues without creating more by trying to force every single person to live the socialist utopian dream.
The thing that bothers me the most, I think, is the lack of honesty around the whole conversation when it comes to renewables. And before you say anything, I’m not against them. If you’re bored enough, you can go look at everything I’ve said or written in this space, and it is simple.
Renewables are part of the energy mix. One part. Like fossil fuels. Like nuclear must eventually be. There is an important place for renewables in some aspects of transport, in powering homes. My late dad and mum have had solar panels on their roof since forever and it makes perfect sense. Every new piece of residential built form should have solar panels on the roof feeding into local energy grids.
But it makes no sense that the biggest threat to koala habitat in NSW is from destruction of native forest by, wait for it, renewable projects. Clearing farmland to scar the countryside with solar and wind farms that render the landscape a shocking eyesore is not green energy and saying it is doesn’t change that. You will never convince me that clearing native terrain and destroying fauna habitat is green energy. It is not.
If this isn’t enough for you, please enjoy some more facts at your leisure.
EVs are the most expensive out of the spectrum of car options on a whole, life-of-asset basis. It’s a cost that most Australians can’t afford and most won’t want to.
A hybrid, though, needs only about 25 per cent of the battery metals of a full EV. Hybrids offer roughly 20 per cent emissions saving over internal combustion engine vehicles, with a fraction of the supporting infrastructure required for full electric vehicles, and without the range anxiety. Anyone wonder why the car of choice by Australia’s cabbies is a hybrid Toyota Camry?
Again, we need a mix of energy sources, and we are heading down a dangerous road because of policy that ignores pragmatic realities, environmental truths and financial impost. If it were just about reducing emissions, we’d be racing down the road to nuclear. Oh, but it’s going to take too long, they say. That’s just a nonsense argument. It’s like saying, oh a cure for cancer will take too long to reach so best we don’t keep going.
There are many people in my life with EVs who love them, for whom EVs work and meet their needs and circumstances. Fantastic. But they are not for everyone.
If we’re honest, the mad, singular push towards EVs is consistent with the all-or-nothing approach adopted by industry lobby groups, and carried, seemingly without being tested at all by energy-illiterate ministers who prefer ideology above all else. Again, if an EV works for you? Fantastic. You’ll find me at the servo, pumping gas and singing a merry tune along the way.
***************************************
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)
***********************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment