tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67279752024-03-18T21:26:56.557+13:00GREENIE WATCH<img src="http://i.imgur.com/fll1V.jpg"><br>
<i><a href="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/">The CRU graph</a>. Note that it is calibrated in tenths of a degree Celsius and that even that tiny amount of warming started long before the late 20th century. The horizontal line is totally arbitrary, just a visual trick. The whole graph would be a horizontal line if it were calibrated in whole degrees -- thus showing ZERO warming</i>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.comBlogger6567125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-84606269973591633022024-03-18T17:00:00.003+13:002024-03-18T17:01:10.286+13:00<br>
<b> Great Barrier Reef undergoing mass bleaching event</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Hoagy is back! Professor Hoegh-Guldberg is once again being an alarmist. He went silent for a few years when his own research showed the reef to be very resilient against damage. But he seems to like attention<br/>
<br/>
Less excitable people below, however, give a more positive and much less alarming picture </i><br/>
<br/>
The Great Barrier Reef has been hit by its fifth mass coral bleaching event in the past eight years. That event has led experts to ask whether Australia's environmental icon has reached a tipping point.<br/>
<br/>
One of the world's leading coral authorities, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, is worried it has.<br/>
<br/>
"I know that's shocking … but that's the type of system we're working with at the moment," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told 730.<br/>
<br/>
The chief scientist for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Roger Beeden, believes such a call is premature.<br/>
<br/>
"Right now, what we've got is a system is that is actually bouncing back from particular events," he said<br/>
<br/>
But he does concede the repeated mass bleachings are taking a toll. "There is no doubt that these events are a clear alarm signal that we all need to be acting on climate change," he said.<br/>
<br/>
The GBRMPA declared a mass bleaching event was underway in Australia last week but how it effects the reef remains to be seen.<br/>
<br/>
"We won't know how significant that is until it plays out, and that's going to play out probably over the next six to eight weeks," Dr Beeden said.<br/>
<br/>
The worst affected areas appear to be in the southern region of the reef.<br/>
<br/>
And when 7.30 showed Professor Hoegh-Guldberg video and images taken recently by the media company, the Undertow, he was alarmed. "I think it's devastating," he said.<br/>
<br/>
"This is an advanced bleaching event and I think a lot of coral is going to die.<br/>
<br/>
"Not only are the branching corals bleaching, which are the sensitive ones, but the bommies, really large long-lived corals are also bleaching severely.<br/>
<br/>
"And these bommies have been around for 200 years, so the fact that they're dying under these conditions should set off the alarm."<br/>
<br/>
Not all bleached coral dies – some of the severely bleached coral from a 2016 event in the north of the reef has survived.<br/>
<br/>
"For those areas that were affected by coral bleaching you can see some recovery in some places. Other places there's no recovery and you can see that full spectrum of things," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.<br/>
<br/>
He says that while it's vital to ensure reefs remain resilient through programs such as improving water quality, repeated bleaching events make recovery harder each time.<br/>
<br/>
"What we do know is that if you increase the events that damage coral and you don't give them enough time to recover, you end up losing coral," he said.<br/>
<br/>
"We've seen bleaching come and go, and what we're seeing here in this 12 to 18 months is that we will see the tipping point exceeded and the system crash."<br/>
<br/>
"As to what that means exactly in terms of species and how that will play out, the ebbs and flows, we don't fully know," Dr Beeden said.<br/>
<br/>
"It's certainly clear from the global science that we're putting pressure on reefs."<br/>
<br/>
But the GBRMPA chief scientist also says the Great Barrier Reef has shown remarkable resilience.<br/>
<br/>
"Given enough time, and a lack of other pressures, coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are still able to bounce back from these kind of events."<br/>
<br/>
A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute for Maritime Science showed coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef was at its highest level since it began records 37 years earlier.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/great-barrier-reef-mass-bleaching-coral-devastated/103588726">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/great-barrier-reef-mass-bleaching-coral-devastated/103588726</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> "Four Pillars of Civilization" Under Attack</b><br/>
<br/>
Recently, Tucker Carlson did a video about the elite “anti-human death-cult” that’s using “climate change” to reverse the industrial revolution. Returning us to an age where abject poverty — even famine — was a daily reality, while freedom was a distant memory.<br/>
<br/>
During the 15 minute interview, Michael Shellenberger said something that bears comment, that “The pillars of civilization are cheap energy, meritocracy, Law and Order, and free speech. And all four of those pillars are currently under attack.”<br/>
<br/>
This strikes me as a solid list of some of the most important load-bearing walls of civilization that are currently under coordinated attack by the left. And if these pillars go the world we know will be gone.<br/>
<br/>
So how exactly are these pillars holding us up?<br/>
<br/>
The list breaks into two hunks: pillars that maintain prosperity — cheap energy, meritocracy. And pillars that are more fundamental, holding up both prosperity and freedom.<br/>
<br/>
Of course, the two are related; historically, prosperous people demand and mobilize for freedom. Starving people do not.<br/>
<br/>
Cheap Energy<br/>
<br/>
Starting with the prosperity, cheap energy literally transformed mankind. The burning of coal in the 18th century enabled the industrial revolution. Which transformed the world from millennia of survival-level stagnation to a world where every generation has a hard time imagining what life was like for their parents, let alone their grandparents.<br/>
<br/>
Indeed, if you teleported a Roman peasant into 16th century Italy, life would be familiar. The legal system, the property rights regime, how people spent their days. School, career, retirement would all be familiar.<br/>
<br/>
In both eras, almost everybody lived on a farm. Some were artisans, a rare few became intellectuals, artists, or philosophers.<br/>
<br/>
There were minor inventions here and there — better plows, new methods of drying fish. But progress was counted in decades — even centuries.<br/>
<br/>
Now teleport that same 16th century Italian peasant to today and it’s almost unimaginable. According to a YouGov poll, the most popular careers in America right now are Youtuber, musician, artist, actress, and professional gamer.<br/>
<br/>
Meritocracy<br/>
<br/>
Meritocracy is an even more fundamental requirement than cheap energy. Because if we aren’t choosing by quality then institutions fail, and our modern prosperity is built on complex organizations. There are companies alone that employ millions, to say nothing of interconnected institutions like legal communities or the academia-science nexus.<br/>
<br/>
These complex organizations enable complex machines. For example, a single Boeing 747 contains 6 million individual parts which all must function in perfect harmony. Those 6 million parts are produced by tens of millions of people in hundreds of thousands of companies all over the world.<br/>
<br/>
All of this, too, must function in perfect harmony for the individual parts to work.<br/>
<br/>
Now multiply that times everything we use — the refrigerated supply chains that keep food from spoiling on the way from the farm, the electricity or water systems that keep cholera out of the water supply. All of this must work perfectly, millions of parts and tens of millions of people.<br/>
<br/>
Law and Order<br/>
<br/>
Aside from the injustice of innocent men condemned and criminals running free to victimize the innocent, from an economic perspective losing law and order crushes prosperity even more thoroughly than losing meritocracy.<br/>
<br/>
This is for two reasons: the obvious risk of government tyranny, and how a perverted or non-functional legal system crushes incentives to build and create.<br/>
<br/>
After all, if a man doesn’t know what behavior will be punished, or whether his property and even freedom is secure, he won’t invest in the future. Why spend decades building if it can be snatched away. If losing meritocracy guts institutions, losing law and order prevents them existing at all.<br/>
<br/>
We know this today because history is full of failed or corrupted legal systems. Indeed, there are failed countries even today, such as parts of Somalia or Congo. All live on the edge of starvation. Men live for today, grab what they can, devil take the hindmost.<br/>
<br/>
Free Speech<br/>
<br/>
Finally, the most important: Free Speech.<br/>
<br/>
Economically, free speech serves two essential functions: diagnosis and repair. Together, it’s a form of insurance against policies that would collapse the rest of it.<br/>
<br/>
After all, if we can’t communicate, we either can’t see problems coming, or we might blame the wrong thing. We might see there’s not enough food, but we don’t know why. The government might tell us its global warming, or greedy business, or the ever-popular saboteurs.<br/>
<br/>
We become the frog in the boiling pot who’s fast asleep.<br/>
<br/>
Worse, without free speech we have no way to organize and fix it. Historically, elites are small and their victims are many, but elites typically hold an organizational advantage — standing armies, back-room cabals. Without free speech the many cannot organize against a predatory few.<br/>
<br/>
We become the frog who’s paralyzed.<br/>
<br/>
What’s Coming Next<br/>
<br/>
In the grand scheme of history, we’ve only just begun to unravel our civilization. I’d date the start to the Progressive era a century ago, when totalitarian socialism gained the upper hand by making a devil’s bargain with liberal democracy: give us control and we will let you sit on the throne.<br/>
<br/>
Over that century, the totalitarians have advanced in fits and starts, each time pushed back as free speech rallied the victims. So it was after World War I, after the Depression, and in the 1960’s reaction against government authority. Each time the totalitarians broke it, and the masses rejected them.<br/>
<br/>
I think we’re entering another major offensive from the totalitarians, which I’d date to 2016 when Brexit and Donald Trump convinced the totalitarians they’re losing. They reacted as they always do, by over-reaching for control. And, like past offenses, they are going for the pillars. The load-bearing walls holding up civilization.<br/>
<br/>
These next couple years will be critical: Will they consolidate their gains and enter a new era of totalitarianism, perhaps as bad as 1300’s absolutism in Europe. Or, once again, will free speech allow us to diagnose and correct the threats in time. This time fortified by the internet — by the very fact you can still read this article.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://cornwallalliance.org/2024/02/four-pillars-of-civilization-under-attack/">https://cornwallalliance.org/2024/02/four-pillars-of-civilization-under-attack/</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of Inertia</b>Australia: Battery Storage Plans Fan Community Bushfire Fears</b><br/>
<br/>
A northeast Victorian community is fighting plans to build battery storage in an area of extreme bushfire risk, as the state government closes one avenue of appeal.<br/>
<br/>
Mint Renewables and Trina Solar plan to build two battery energy storage systems (BESS) near the Dederang terminal station in the Kiewa Valley.<br/>
<br/>
“It’s just ridiculous,” Dederang’s Sharon McEvoy, who owns farmland next to the proposed sites, told AAP.<br/>
<br/>
“It’s north-facing, and backs right up next to the bush ... surrounded by bushfire management overlays.”<br/>
<br/>
Ms. McEvoy led a community meeting, as more than 200 frustrated residents of Dederang and nearby communities filled the recreation reserve hall and spilled out onto the deck and foyer.<br/>
<br/>
“We know the fire risk,” she told the crowd on March 14.<br/>
<br/>
Battery fires can burn for several days and release toxic and flammable gasses, as seen in 2021’s four-day fire at the Tesla Big Battery site near Geelong, west of Melbourne.<br/>
<br/>
“We care about the environment, the waterways, and the land where we live and work,” said Ms. McEvoy, while fighting back tears.<br/>
<br/>
“The government is sacrificing the wellbeing of rural communities.”<br/>
<br/>
The meeting came hours after the Victorian government announced plans to fast track new renewables projects, including stripping the ability of third parties to appeal planning decisions in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).<br/>
<br/>
“Once the reforms come into effect, new permit applications for batteries can be considered under this new accelerated pathway,” a spokeswoman for the department transport and planning told AAP.<br/>
<br/>
“Our accelerated pathway for renewables projects will help deliver cheaper and cleaner energy to Victorian households sooner.”<br/>
<br/>
The department has not yet received permit applications for either of the Dederang battery storage projects, and applications made from April 1 can be considered for fast tracking.<br/>
<br/>
The state government maintained community voices would continue to be protected, despite the curtailing of VCAT access.<br/>
<br/>
“Third party objections will still have a place in the approvals process, but this change prevents time-consuming and repeated delays that hold these projects back for years,” the Victorian government said on March 14.<br/>
<br/>
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said the issue went far beyond a state planning issue.<br/>
<br/>
“What is happening to your community is happening right across the country,” Senator McKenzie told the crowd.<br/>
<br/>
“We’re all on the journey to net zero, but we need to share the burden.”<br/>
<br/>
Both Chinese-owned Trina Solar and Mint, owned by Infratil and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, opted not to attend the meeting.<br/>
<br/>
“We are updating our design and developing mitigation measures to ensure the project is well-informed by local knowledge,” Mint said in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
“We will continue to be open and responsive to questions and constructive feedback.”<br/>
<br/>
Ovens Valley state MP Tim McCurdy said residents should direct their concerns to Victoria’s minister for planning, Sonya Kilkenny.<br/>
<br/>
“We’re not anti-renewables, we just want communication,” Mr. McCurdy told the crowd.<br/>
<br/>
“We want to know what’s going on.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/battery-storage-plans-fan-community-bushfire-fears-5607927">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/battery-storage-plans-fan-community-bushfire-fears-5607927</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-68866647928480077502024-03-17T18:05:00.002+13:002024-03-17T18:05:48.507+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Little-known international NGO finalizing building code forcing US homes to be green</b><br/>
<br/>
An international organization that develops model codes and standards for new construction is quietly preparing an energy conservation code that opponents argue is a backdoor climate initiative and will lead to higher home prices.<br/>
<br/>
The International Code Council (ICC) — a Washington, D.C.-based group that regularly issues more than a dozen codes regulating new construction and impacting billions of people worldwide — is expected to finalize its 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) early next week. While previous IECCs received little opposition, the 2024 version has been widely criticized for prioritizing climate initiatives over energy efficiency.<br/>
<br/>
"They're incentivizing electrification and discriminating against the natural gas industry by excluding it from being part of the code," Karen Harbert, the president and CEO of the American Gas Association (AGA), told Fox News Digital in an interview. "That really is anticompetitive behavior."<br/>
<br/>
"If you are about energy efficiency, you should say, ‘We are about energy efficiency however you get there’ — being fuel neutral. But in this case, they are prescribing the way to get there, and it only includes electrification."<br/>
<br/>
AGA, whose members provide natural gas service to 180 million customers nationwide, has argued in recent months that the ICC developed its 2024 energy efficiency code with "serious lapses in due process" by not involving them. It further said the code would harm consumers and lead to higher costs.<br/>
<br/>
The leading gas industry group, other energy industry associations, housing groups and the ICC's own Northeast regional branch filed appeals in late December and early January asking for a revision to the 2024 IECC. However, the ICC's appeals board recommended this month that those appeals be rejected, leaving the group's board of directors with the final decision. That's expected to come Monday.<br/>
<br/>
Among the provisions opposed, the draft IECC, which has been in development for years, requires new one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses to install electrical infrastructure for home electric vehicle chargers. It also mandates that new homes are equipped with the electrical wiring needed for a solar panel system and all-electric appliances.<br/>
<br/>
According to the AGA, those measures and other provisions were largely included in the IECC as part of an omnibus package in September 2022 after rejection through the normal process.<br/>
<br/>
"The activists that are supporting an all-electrification agenda tried to come in through the policy front door, which was to ban natural gas in cities, and that got overturned in the Ninth Circuit," Harbert told Fox News Digital. "They tried to ban gas at the state level, and that's now being challenged. And they have tried to do it through regulation and have been unsuccessful."<br/>
<br/>
"So, you go to a process that is very much under the radar, very wonky, very technical, but with the same objectives," she continued, referencing the IECC process. "You come in the front door, you come in the side door, now you're coming in the back door."<br/>
<br/>
In addition to AGA, the American Public Gas Association, the appliance manufacturer trade group Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) also filed appeals to the 2024 IECC.<br/>
<br/>
"As long-standing supporters of the ICC codes and standards, we are concerned that this version of the IECC misses the mark," Paula Cino, NMHC's vice president for construction, development, land use and counsel, told Fox News Digital in a written statement.<br/>
<br/>
"Without action from the ICC Board to cabin provisions that exceed the bounds of the code, this IECC would threaten housing affordability and weigh renters down with costs for unwanted or unusable technologies," she added.<br/>
<br/>
In its December appeal filed jointly with BOMA, NMHC particularly criticized the IECC's electric vehicle charging provision and another provision requiring new homes to have so-called demand responsive controls for water heating equipment, allowing a third party to reduce a home's energy consumption in times of high demand. NMHC and BOMA argued that the 2024 IECC would place additional costs on Americans, including low-income families.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/little-known-international-ngo-finalizing-building-code-forcing-us-homes-to-be-green">https://www.foxnews.com/politics/little-known-international-ngo-finalizing-building-code-forcing-us-homes-to-be-green</a>
</p>
*******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Some PA Democrats Are Pushing Back Against Eco-Fundamentalism</b><br/>
<br/>
In a sign of how far left the Democratic Party has veered, once-avowed progressives are now hesitant to embrace eco-fundamentalism—the dogmatic ideology that vilifies affordable energy, oversells “green” initiatives and advances ruinous policies.<br/>
<br/>
Consider Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.). They’re both loyal, party-line Pennsylvania Democrats. But they’re also politicians who know which way the wind is blowing with the American people. So they broke ranks with President Biden on his liquid natural gas (LNG) export ban.<br/>
<br/>
“If this decision puts Pennsylvania energy jobs at risk, we will push the Biden Administration to reverse this decision,” they said.<br/>
<br/>
Fetterman and Casey were joined by fellow Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in opposing the ban, but not all liberals are on board. Their party-mates in Washington, D.C. would be wise to follow their example and moderate on energy policy, or they will soon discover that as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation.<br/>
<br/>
The warnings appear to be falling on deaf ears among Democratic leaders. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s efforts to keep the state in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), along with Biden’s LNG ban, are among the most recent efforts to impose extremist energy policies.<br/>
<br/>
When he was running for office, Shapiro declared that RGGI was not “real action” and added that it likely wouldn’t address climate change. But as governor, he has become its champion.<br/>
<br/>
Biden and Shapiro are singing from the same eco-fundamentalist hymnal. Their siren song would cripple American energy production and independence. Though an easy pitch to blue states, these purported carbon-reduction schemes are harder to sell in energy-producing purple states such as Pennsylvania, as Shapiro knows perfectly well.<br/>
<br/>
RGGI, like the LNG ban, is not popular in the Keystone state. This multi-state compact taxes carbon-emitting companies and doles out the extracted funds from successful energy businesses in corporate welfare to renewable energy businesses and conservation organizations.<br/>
<br/>
A Commonwealth Court recently struck down Pennsylvania’s entry into RGGI, calling the carbon tax illegal. Much to the chagrin of the 71 percent of Pennsylvania voters who oppose the program, Shapiro appealed the decision and prolonged the RGGI’s unwelcomed presence in Pennsylvania, which will now come before the state’s Supreme Court.<br/>
<br/>
Before RGGI, Pennsylvania had already significantly reduced carbon emissions through the introduction of natural gas. In fact, the state’s carbon-reduction efforts had already been exceeding RGGI member states. From 2007 to 2019, RGGI states cut emissions by 37 percent. Comparatively, Pennsylvania cut more, reducing emissions by 40 percent. Since 1970, Pennsylvania’s carbon dioxide emissions have dropped 30 percent, whereas national emissions have increased by 15 percent.<br/>
<br/>
Increased production and extraction of natural gas, which emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal, drastically reduced emissions in Pennsylvania. The most precipitous drop in emissions occurred following the 2005 shale boom.<br/>
<br/>
Pennsylvania did this all without RGGI.<br/>
<br/>
Ultimately, RGGI doesn’t decrease emissions—it merely exports them. Comparing energy consumption of RGGI and non-RGGI-member states in the Eastern Interconnection, a 2021 study found decreased emissions in the RGGI states but increased emissions in non-RGGI states—a phenomenon experts refer to as “leakage.” By reducing consumption and production in member states, RGGI’s leakage incentivizes neighboring states to pick up the slack.<br/>
<br/>
RGGI states rely heavily on importing their electricity. Based on total consumption, three of the top-five net-importing states—Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware—are RGGI states.<br/>
<br/>
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is an energy juggernaut, home to abundant natural gas reserves, a well-established history of coal production, and a robust nuclear industry. This full-bodied statewide production inspired one pundit to call the Keystone State “the Saudi Arabia of North American energy supply.”<br/>
<br/>
Energy production is the lifeblood of Pennsylvania’s economy. Energy production supports more than 423,000 jobs and contributes more than $75 billion annually to the commonwealth’s economy. Cutting into Pennsylvania’s energy sector threatens the livelihoods of hard-working Pennsylvanians and the communities where energy extraction is the leading employer.<br/>
<br/>
Moreover, increased energy costs translate into increased utility bills, placing an undue burden on consumers already struggling with the higher cost of living. Virginia, also now a purple state, is in the process of leaving RGGI due to increased rates caused by the program’s caps. Needing $370 million in allowances to offset its above-cap emissions, Dominion Energy, headquartered in Richmond, added a surcharge to its monthly billing to make up the difference, passing the cost of RGGI along to Virginia residents.<br/>
<br/>
As Virginia exits RGGI, Pennsylvania and other states must follow suit. Senators Casey and Fetterman would do well to make their opposition to Biden’s LNG export ban consistent by opposing RGGI. Governor Shapiro should stop trying to have it both ways on RGGI, and should clarify his policy toward Pennsylvania’s energy sector by dropping his appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.<br/>
<br/>
As the second-largest energy-producing state and the eighth-highest net exporter, Pennsylvania is a microcosm of our country’s growing momentum toward energy independence. In 2019, American energy exports exceeded imports for the first time since 1952, providing diplomatic leverage to the U.S. and freeing our reliance on foreign despots and cartels. From Ukraine to the Middle East, the escalating specter of global conflict and intensifying chaos abroad make our need for energy independence more urgent than ever.<br/>
<br/>
From RGGI to LNG bans, destructive “green” initiatives—and their quixotic quest for carbon neutrality—undermine our national momentum toward energy independence. Instead of one-size-fits-all carbon-reduction plans, state legislatures should embrace and strengthen our country’s position as an international leader in energy production.<br/>
<br/>
This should not be a partisan issue—it is an American issue.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/some-pa-democrats-are-pushing-back-against-eco-fundamentalism">https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/some-pa-democrats-are-pushing-back-against-eco-fundamentalism</a>
</p>
*******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Everything Reminds Me Of Tim: Biography Of Tim Ball</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Since the inception of the climate scare a lot of us skeptics have been elderly and we are dying out. I am 80 so it may be my time soon. Tim lived to 84</i><br/>
<br/>
John O'Sullivan<br/>
<br/>
New biography of one of the world’s best skeptical climatologists, Dr Tim Ball, has just been released. Written by Tim’s widow, Marty, it provides unique personal insights into the life and work of a most accomplished critic of the junk science of man-made global warming.<br/>
<br/>
Nobody has done as much – for as long and at such great cost – to expose the lies and misapprehensions over the most enduring and organised crime syndicate in modern history. Tim Ball obtained his PhD in the field of climatology in London in 1983 and had no qualms disavowing himself of nonsense scare stories being peddled by university colleagues over alleged ‘dangerous’ human CO2 emissions.<br/>
<br/>
Over the subsequent 40 years the tenacious but avuncular Dr Ball produced countless scientific articles, lectures, seminars, books and radio and TV interviews in his mission to offer balance to the official doomsday narrative.<br/>
<br/>
In early 2010 it was my honor and pleasure to count Tim as a dear friend and colleague when he joined our nascent international team of climate researchers who collaborated in writing the world’s first and only full-volume debunk of the science behind it all – ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ (2010).<br/>
<br/>
Thanks to Tim’s input Father Time and the scientific method has vindicated our book despite the vitriol and ridicule flung at us. Our research and analyes is proven entirely accurate in revealing that not only is carbon dioxide not our climate’s control knob, but this trace atmospheric gas serves only to COOL, and not warm anything.<br/>
<br/>
Such is the extent to which midwittery, group think and corruption has poisoned the intellectual well of academic thought that even now, countless famed scholars still dare not openly admit they had it wrong and CO2 is innocent.<br/>
<br/>
Dr Ball was a humble, hard-working but inspirational thought leader whose mantra throughout the hard-fought and often bitter climate debate was to remain civil – ‘disagree, but without being disagreeable.’<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/everything-reminds-me-of-tim-biography-of-tim-ball/">https://principia-scientific.com/everything-reminds-me-of-tim-biography-of-tim-ball/</a>
</p>
*******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australian Alps snow cover to fare worst in the world under climate change, German study finds</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> And pigs might fly. Prophecies are worthless. The best snow in our general area is in New Zealand, anyway</i><br/>
<br/>
A grim picture has been painted of the future of the Australian Alps, with research predicting snow cover days may fall by 78 per cent by the end of the century.<br/>
<br/>
Worldwide, 13 per cent of ski areas are predicted to lose all natural snow cover by 2100.<br/>
<br/>
Researchers from the University of Bayreuth in Germany have today published a study in the journal PLOS One, prompting calls from academics to reinforce an urgent need to address climate change.<br/>
<br/>
The study puts Australia's rate of decline as the highest when compared to six other major skiing regions in the world, including New Zealand, Europe and Japan.<br/>
<br/>
"I'm not surprised by the findings of this report, to be honest," Climatologist and Australian National University Professor Janette Lindesay said.<br/>
<br/>
"There's no doubt that we're heading for an even warmer future."<br/>
<br/>
The study found one in eight ski areas across the globe, or 13 per cent of winter ski slopes, were predicted to lose all natural snow cover this century under a high emissions scenario.<br/>
<br/>
High emissions referred to one of three climate change scenarios based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways model laid out in the study, alongside "low" and "very high".<br/>
<br/>
Study co-author Dr Veronika Mitterwallner said her team focused on the "high emission" projection to summarise their findings because they considered it the most current and realistic scenario of the three.<br/>
<br/>
Despite this, the study found annual snow cover days across all seven "major mountain areas with downhill skiing will significantly decrease worldwide" across all three scenarios.<br/>
<br/>
Professor Lindesay said it reinforced a need to ramp up efforts to tackle climate change and lessen potential damage to alpine environments.<br/>
<br/>
"The scenarios are effectively storylines … taking into account possible future carbon dioxide emissions, socio-economic circumstances, population growth and possible policy responses to global heating," she said.<br/>
<br/>
"The best thing we can do is get emissions down to net zero as fast as we possibly can."<br/>
<br/>
The study predicts snow resorts may need to move or expand into less populated mountain areas at higher elevations to combat the effects of climate change.<br/>
<br/>
But University of Canberra based geomorphologist Phil Campbell said that would not necessarily work in Australia where ski resorts were at a lower altitude compared to other countries.<br/>
<br/>
"One of the problems in Australia is that we're fairly low in our ski resorts, which are already at the very top of our mountains," he said.<br/>
<br/>
"We're not going to have the same ability as many other countries do to be able to relocate our ski resorts.<br/>
<br/>
"The same goes for endangered plant species as well, because there's nowhere for them to retreat to."<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/australian-alps-snow-cover-climate-change-german-researchers-/103577562">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/australian-alps-snow-cover-climate-change-german-researchers-/103577562</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-1094225324196225492024-03-14T19:18:00.003+13:002024-03-14T19:19:09.158+13:00
<br/>
<b> President Biden’s Climate Aspirations</b><br/>
<br/>
Most of what the political class calls policies are really aspirations with no policy content. They are feel-good statements that promote goals most people would support, with no associated policies that would move toward those goals. The following is an example.<br/>
<br/>
The White House’s web page for the National Climate Task Force (skip down to the section “President Biden’s Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis”) lists emissions goals for 2030, 2035, and 2050, well after President Biden will have left office, even if he serves out a second term. These are aspirations and aspirations that would have to be met by his successors, letting the president off the accountability hook.<br/>
<br/>
What prompted me to write about this subject was this article titled “Biden’s scaled-back power rule raises doubts over US climate target,” which reports on an actual policy. The Biden administration has decided to exclude natural gas power plants from upcoming emissions standards.<br/>
<br/>
The key point in this example is that the president’s actual policy works against the president’s stated goals.<br/>
<br/>
Further down, the website lists the Biden administration’s accomplishments toward fulfilling his climate aspirations. They include a record number of electric vehicles and charging stations, new solar and wind projects, and supporting domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies.<br/>
<br/>
Those may be good things, but they are things the private sector is doing. “Support” isn’t a policy; it’s an attempt to take political credit for private sector action. If these things count as accomplishments, they are private sector accomplishments, not Biden administration accomplishments.<br/>
<br/>
The website also credits the Biden administration for finalizing the strongest vehicle emissions standards in American history and proposing more robust standards for greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. Those are not policies; they are aspirations. Should those aspirations be realized, it will be because the private sector has figured out how to reduce its emissions.<br/>
<br/>
As the political season ramps up this year, notice that the “policies” that politicians will propose are not really policies at all; they are aspirations. They say, “Here are some good things I would like to accomplish if I am elected,” but they don’t say how they intend to accomplish them. They amount to feel-good slogans rather than actual public policies.<br/>
<br/>
Most people will be in favor of mitigating climate change, reducing crime, securing the border, and reducing the budget deficit. Those are feel-good aspirations. Fewer people will favor specific policies aimed at realizing those aspirations. That’s why politicians talk about aspirations rather than specific policies. That’s also why those aspirations often fail to be realized.<br/>
<br/>
The aspirations are popular; the policies to accomplish them are less so. That’s why the Biden administration is enacting a policy that works against his own stated goals.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://blog.independent.org/2024/03/05/president-bidens-climate-aspirations/">https://blog.independent.org/2024/03/05/president-bidens-climate-aspirations/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> UK: Net Zero an urgent threat to national security</b><br/>
<br/>
A new paper from Net Zero Watch makes a comprehensive case that efforts to decarbonise the steel and electricity fundamentals of the economy now represent a real and present danger to national security.<br/>
<br/>
In an important intervention, Sir Gerald Howarth, Minister for International Security Strategy under David Cameron, says in the paper’s foreword:<br/>
<br/>
“Our adversaries are watching us like hawks, so let us leave them in no doubt: we are rearming and rebuilding, and Net Zero is firmly on hold.”<br/>
<br/>
Professor Gwythian Prins, a defence expert and one of the paper’s authors, agrees that with the recent deterioration of the world's security situation, luxury beliefs such as Net Zero must be jettisoned as a matter of urgency:<br/>
<br/>
“This is the moment when the music stops. The Port Talbot closure harshly exposes the costs of luxury ‘green’ beliefs. We cannot be dependent on imports for the full range of necessary steels to rebuild our arsenals – the Navy first and foremost – and, most ridiculously, we cannot depend for them on our global antagonists."<br/>
<br/>
"Furthermore, our armed forces are wholly dependent on oil to keep them in the field, and our electricity grid will collapse without gas. Any attempt to abandon them will leave us entirely at the mercy of hostile powers."<br/>
<br/>
The paper also includes contributions from Gautam Kalghatgi, a professor of combustion and energy engineering, who ridicules plans to decarbonise the armed forces through use of batteries and biofuels, and the historian Guy de la Bédoyère, who sets out the eternal historical lesson that technological laggards usually end up the victims of conquest by their more advanced neighbours.<br/>
<br/>
Mr de la Bédoyère said:<br/>
<br/>
“It is impossible to diminish the effectiveness of a nation’s armed forces without making it a sitting duck for a more ambitious rival’s greed. But that’s exactly what our leaders seem to want to do.”<br/>
<br/>
Andrew Montford, director of Net Zero Watch said:<br/>
<br/>
“The three contributors make it clear that Net Zero is leaving us at the mercy of hostile powers. A Net Zero army and a Net Zero economy could both be brought to their knees in a matter of days. In these dangerous times, our politicians must re-order their priorities.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://mailchi.mp/9f70d53a356e/press-release-net-zero-an-urgent-threat-to-national-security-201280?e=cc88839e92">https://mailchi.mp/9f70d53a356e/press-release-net-zero-an-urgent-threat-to-national-security-201280?e=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Population is not being told the true cost of Net Zero, warns former World Bank economist</b><br/>
<br/>
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition.<br/>
<br/>
Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.<br/>
<br/>
The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.<br/>
<br/>
There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.<br/>
<br/>
Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).<br/>
<br/>
Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.<br/>
<br/>
Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.<br/>
<br/>
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/population-is-not-being-told-the-true-cost-of-net-zero-warns-former-world-bank-economist/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/population-is-not-being-told-the-true-cost-of-net-zero-warns-former-world-bank-economist/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australian conservative opposition Confirms It Will Develop 6 Nuclear Power Sites</b><br/>
<br/>
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has confirmed the Coalition’s energy policy—expected to be released ahead of the federal budget in May—will probably include six nuclear plant sites.<br/>
<br/>
While he has yet to name the exact locations, Tasmania has been ruled out as a potential host state. It’s considered likely that the reactors would be built on the sites of old coal stations to take advantage of existing transmission infrastructure.<br/>
<br/>
This means the Labor-held seat of Hunter, the independent seat of Calare, and Coalition-held Flynn, Maranoa, O’Connor, and Gippsland may be all on the shortlist for nuclear power stations.<br/>
<br/>
At the Australian Financial Review Business Summit in Sydney on March 12, Mr. Dutton said the Coalition would encourage nearby communities to accept the plants by offering them subsidised energy—a model he said was used in the United States. He told the audience that it would also provide an incentive for the industry to establish jobs.<br/>
<br/>
“Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emission and firms up renewables,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
The opposition’s position comes as modelling on Australia’s net zero transition estimates the country will need to invest hundreds of billions, and even trillions, to fully reduce emissions.<br/>
<br/>
The tremendous cost stems from the widescale investment in wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and pumped hydro (where available), but also into transmission infrastructure, as well as electrification of public transport networks and private vehicles (buying EVs instead of regular cars).<br/>
<br/>
Nuclear Detractors Also Point to Cost<br/>
<br/>
Energy experts say it’s difficult to estimate the cost of transitioning to nuclear, given the technology is not currently commercially available.<br/>
<br/>
But during the speech, Mr. Dutton dismissed what he described as “straw man arguments” against nuclear, including cost.<br/>
<br/>
“Australia’s energy mix is about 21 percent gas, 47 per cent coal, and 32 percent renewables. Ontario province in Canada is about 5 percent gas, 35 percent renewables, and 60 percent nuclear. South Korea is about 30 percent gas, 30 percent coal, and 30 percent nuclear, with the balance mainly hydro … Australians pay almost double what Ontario and South Korean residents pay,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
He said reactors produce a “small amount of waste” and said the government had already signed up to deal with nuclear waste via the AUKUS agreement.<br/>
<br/>
The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) found there were 2,061 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in 2021, compared to 1,771 cubic metres in 2018. It projects 4,377 cubic metres in the next 50 years, compared to 3,734 cubic metres projected in 2018.<br/>
<br/>
Intermediate-level waste is produced in nuclear medicine—for example, imaging, scanning and radiotherapy.<br/>
<br/>
Currently, the waste is stored in more than 100 places, but most of it is held at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facilities in Lucas Heights, Sydney.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/opposition-confirms-it-would-develop-6-nuclear-power-sites-5605495">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/opposition-confirms-it-would-develop-6-nuclear-power-sites-5605495</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-44159174167129639022024-03-13T15:27:00.002+13:002024-03-13T15:28:21.554+13:00<br><br/>
<b> America’s Energy Scam! A deliberate exploitation of humanity that only increases emissions!</b><br/>
<br/>
America is aggressively pursuing “green” electricity and actively phasing out crude oil to reduce emissions generated in America by deliberately increasing worldwide exploitations of humanity, environmental degradation, and increased emissions.<br/>
<br/>
California Governor Gavin Newsom, President Joe Biden, and world leaders are not cognizant enough to know that wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity and cannot manufacture tires, cable insulation, asphalt, medicines, and the more than 6,000 products now made from the petrochemical derivatives manufactured from crude oil.<br/>
<br/>
Without a replacement for the petrochemical derivatives manufactured from crude oil, phasing out oil would also phase out the medical, military, transportation, communications, and electrical power industries, none of which existed before the 1800s.<br/>
<br/>
Climate change may impact millions, but without fossil fuels and the infrastructures and products we have today that did not exist before the 1800s, we may lose billions from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.<br/>
<br/>
Eradicating the world of crude oil usage would ground the 20,000 commercial aircraft, and more than 50,000 military aircraft worldwide, leave the 50,000 merchant ships tied up at docks, and discontinue the military and space programs! Without a backup plan to replace crude oil, the 8 billion on this planet will face the greatest threat to humanity without jets, merchant ships, and space programs.<br/>
<br/>
America’s climate policies being introduced are particularly harmful to developing countries. America is probably the most environmentally controlled country in the world, but by deliberately relying on poorer developing countries for our fuels and products, we are “leaking” to other countries:<br/>
<br/>
In the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis in 1977, the Department of Energy was established to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, but today, with its 14,000 employees and a 48 billion dollar budget, the D.O.E. continues to remain dead silent and has allowed California, the fourth-largest economy in the world to increase imported crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent today of total consumption.<br/>
<br/>
California is home to 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America. California’s growing dependency on other nations is a serious national security risk for America!<br/>
<br/>
China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are great war historians. As World War I and II historians, Russia, China, and OPEC know, the country that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas controls the world! It’s shocking that of all the Generals who report to President Biden (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Program), NONE have asked the President how we will run our military ships, planes, vehicles, and supply products to our troops WITHOUT oil?<br/>
<br/>
It’s a no-brainer that an attack on the ports at San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Long Beach could paralyze the American economy, causing huge reductions in fuels for California’s in-state infrastructures and stagnating the supply chain of products for the entire country.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, California continues to constantly reduce its in-state refining capacity, which refines fuels and petrochemicals for society’s materialistic demands and continues to grow its dependency on foreign oil.<br/>
<br/>
A few notes about ELECTRICITY:<br/>
<br/>
Everything that needs electricity, such as the basic light bulb, computers, iPhones and iPads, televisions, washing machines, and X-ray equipment, is made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.<br/>
<br/>
Every method of generating electricity, such as wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants, exists only because the parts and components of the generation system are made with crude oil derivatives.<br/>
<br/>
Renewables, like wind turbines and solar panels, only generate occasional electricity from inconsistent breezes and sunshine but manufacture no products for society.<br/>
<br/>
Fossil fuels, on the other hand, manufacture everything for the 8 billion living on this planet, i.e., products and transportation fuels.<br/>
<br/>
Most importantly, today, there is a lost reality that the primary usage of crude oil is NOT for generating electricity but to manufacture derivatives and fuels, which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper. Energy realism requires that the legislators, policymakers, and media that demonstrate pervasive ignorance about crude oil usage understand the staggering scale of the decarbonization movement.<br/>
<br/>
The ruling class and powerful elite have yet to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products and all the fuels for the merchant ships, aircraft, military, and space programs that support the 8 billion living on this planet.<br/>
<br/>
The American government provides incentives and tax deductions to transition society to EVs, but those incentives are financial incentives for the continuation of Child Labor and Ecological Destruction “Elsewhere.” Is it ethical and moral to provide financial support to developing countries that are mining for exotic minerals and metals to build EV batteries for Americans?<br/>
<br/>
We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800s. Until a crude oil replacement is identified, the world needs a backup plan that replaces crude oil that will support the manufacturing of the products of our materialistic society.<br/>
<br/>
Today’s materialistic world cannot survive without crude oil! Conversations are needed to discuss the difference between just ELECTRICITY” from renewables and the “PRODUCTS” that are the basis of society’s materialistic world. Wind turbines and solar panels are themselves MADE from oil derivatives and only generate occasional electricity but manufacture NOTHING for society.<br/>
<br/>
How dare the ruling class, powerful elite, and media avoid energy literacy conversations about the “Elephant in the Room.” The end of crude oil, which is manufactured into all the products and transportation fuels that built the world to eight billion people, would be the end of civilization, as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.americaoutloud.news/americas-energy-scam-a-deliberate-exploitation-of-humanity-that-only-increases-emissions/">https://www.americaoutloud.news/americas-energy-scam-a-deliberate-exploitation-of-humanity-that-only-increases-emissions/</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Net Zero Watch welcomes British Government recognition of need for gas</b><br/>
<br/>
Net Zero Watch has welcomed the announcement that the Government will support new gas-fired power stations.<br/>
<br/>
The campaign group said that it was the latest sign of a shift towards more pragmatic energy policies. It said the new plants were vital for energy security, but noted that the need for subsidies, announced at the same time, was a reflection of a broken energy system.<br/>
<br/>
Net Zero Watch’s head of policy, Harry Wilkinson, speaking to TalkTV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer said:<br/>
<br/>
‘People can debate this decision if they like, but this was the inevitable result of the fact that the lights will go out if we do not build this firm, reliable capacity…It’s the right decision, but it has come very late. We have to remember that Britain has some of the most expensive electricity prices in the world, particularly for businesses, and that’s done an enormous amount of damage.’<br/>
<br/>
The decision is likely to be opposed by the Labour Party, whose shadow Secretary of State, Ed Miliband, remains committed to full decarbonisation of the grid by 2030. Most analysts view this target as infeasible.<br/>
<br/>
Because the new stations will only be used occasionally, they will have to be heavily subsidised. The need for such support generation is well known, but today’s announcement is an important recognition that gas will remain indispensable.<br/>
<br/>
Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s energy director, said:<br/>
<br/>
‘Net Zero dies, not with a bang, but a whimper. Subsidising new gas power stations to prop up unreliable and uncontrollable wind and solar means that the failing Net Zero target can limp along for another five or ten years at huge consumer cost and vast economic damage. Looking on the bright side, these power stations will eventually be used as part of the desperate return to fossil fuels that is inevitable as reality bites home and wind and solar are abandoned. But with a little courage all of this absurd cost could have been avoided. What a mess.’<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/recognition-need-for-gas">https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/recognition-need-for-gas</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Climate doomsday theory goes up in smoke</b><br/>
<br/>
Decades of scientific speculation have painted super volcanic eruptions as potential extinction-level events. However, new research suggests that even the most monstrous of eruptions wouldn’t quite lead to such frigid scenarios.<br/>
<br/>
Indonesia’s Toba volcano: An explosive past<br/><br>
Around 74,000 years ago, Indonesia’s Toba volcano unleashed a huge eruption that made modern volcanic events look like mere firecrackers. It was 1,000 times stronger than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. The eruption sent a huge plume of ash and gas into the atmosphere, covering much of the globe in a thick layer of debris.<br/>
<br/>
But how it impacted Earth’s climate afterward remains a lingering mystery. While experts agree on some cooling effects, just how severe the aftermath gets much murkier, with estimates ranging from a few degrees drop to a potential ice age.<br/>
<br/>
New simulations by NASA and Columbia University scientists offer a more reassuring picture. Their study shows that even a super-eruption like Toba would likely cause a global temperature decline of only about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), far from a civilization-ending catastrophe. So why the tempered outcomes?<br/>
<br/>
“The relatively modest temperature changes we found most compatible with the evidence could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,” said lead author Zachary McGraw, a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University. Here’s a video from Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell on a potential supervolcano blow-up.<br/>
<br/>
Role of Sulfur particles<br/>
<br/>
Previous models focused on the immense sulfur dioxide plume released by super-eruptions that condenses into tiny sunlight-blocking particles high in the atmosphere. Here’s the twist: scientists discovered that the size of these aerosol particles dictates just how chilly things get.<br/>
<br/>
The tinier the particles, the greater their sunlight-blocking potential. Unfortunately, gleaning the size of particles from eruptions thousands of years old is extraordinarily difficult, leading to vastly differing estimates.<br/>
<br/>
Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, who was not part of the study, suggested that further research be conducted on the cooling mechanisms of super-eruptions. He believes that a comprehensive analysis of models, as well as additional laboratory and model studies on the factors that influence the size of volcanic aerosol particles, are necessary to move forward.<br/>
<br/>
Millán stated that the ongoing uncertainties show that geoengineering via stratospheric aerosol injection is far from being a viable option.<br/>
<br/>
Geoengineering lessons from natural disasters<br/>
<br/>
Super-eruptions are very rare events, occurring once every 100,000 years or so. The last one happened more than 22,000 years ago in New Zealand. The most famous example may be the Yellowstone Crater eruption in Wyoming about 2 million years ago.<br/>
<br/>
This finding could even influence the debate on geoengineering, wherein scientists propose artificially injecting particles into the atmosphere to slightly dim the sun and counter global warming. Understanding the intricate workings of these natural volcanic systems provides crucial insights into the potential (and unintended) consequences of such intentional climate control strategies.<br/>
<br/>
While super-eruptions might not hold the doom-and-gloom capacity some predicted, the power of volcanoes to shape our planet remains uncontested. This research is a reminder of nature’s ever-churning forces and the delicate balance of our climate.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://interestingengineering.com/science/supervolcanoes-wont-trigger-an-ice-age-new-research-finds">https://interestingengineering.com/science/supervolcanoes-wont-trigger-an-ice-age-new-research-finds</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The Leftist Australian government is hiding many dark environmental secrets</b><br/>
<br/>
The Albanese government is embracing some of the worst practices of dictator-driven governments to conceal controversial environmental measures. The secrecy may be necessary because the measures curb mining in Australia, hit many property developments, restrict solar farms and hurt farmers.<br/>
<br/>
I emphasise this commentary is not about the detail of what is planned — I don’t know the detail. My contribution is to reveal the extraordinary third world practices being embraced by Anthony Albanese to conceal what is planned so it can be rushed through the parliament.<br/>
<br/>
I fear the designers have no regard to the revenue implications of what they plan. Their title “The Nature Positive Plan” looks to be in the tradition of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.<br/>
<br/>
The secrecy measures are nothing short of extraordinary and are equally dangerous as those used by former PM Scott Morrison to conceal the fact he was taking on extra ministries.<br/>
<br/>
I set out below how the truth behind “The Nature Positive Plan” is being concealed.<br/>
<br/>
Representatives from leading companies and other interested parties are invited to go into a room to look at parts — not all — of the draft legislation.<br/>
<br/>
But before they are allowed to enter the room, they must sign a voluminous confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing both their entry into the room and the contents of the draft legislation they are about to be shown. I do not know the exact penalties for breaching that agreement, but the fines will be heavy and jail a possibility.<br/>
<br/>
Once the agreement is signed, those allowed to enter the room are told they must not photograph any of the draft legislation on the table and cannot take it away. They are given a fixed time to take notes using blank paper and a pen.<br/>
<br/>
There is some discussion allowed about the draft, but I don’t know the details. The participants are allowed to take their notes away with them. Nothing else.<br/>
<br/>
I don’t know the people who were invited but almost certainly some will be international companies who later (illegally) will report back to international boards, including those in the US (our defence partner), this is a country where very strange practices are taking place.<br/>
<br/>
To overseas eyes used to third world countries, it must reek of corruption, but I don’t think money-based corruption is taking place. It's all about extreme left wing agendas.<br/>
<br/>
As I understand it, there have been several of these bizarre events. Only a government with something very dangerous to conceal would embrace this sort of tactic.<br/>
<br/>
It is publicly known the Albanese government is planning a new tranche of legislation to replace the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.<br/>
<br/>
The EPBC Act was a carefully prepared document. The states and federal governments set the framework and then industry groups, individual companies, environmental groups, scientists, conservationists, subject-matter experts, and the general community were consulted extensively.<br/>
<br/>
The EPBC Act was developed over years before the federal government published a discussion paper, then an exposure draft, to get detailed feedback on the entire suite of changes.<br/>
<br/>
The Albanese government thinks it can replace this substantial, 1,100-page legislation (plus hundreds of further pages of subsidiary legislation) in short time.<br/>
<br/>
Australia as a nation spends its mining, agriculture and property revenue by providing very high levels of social services. Jim Chalmers, in recognition of this revenue source, has taken steps to make mining approvals smoother.<br/>
<br/>
But, I suspect the treasurer does not know exactly what is being planned. You will remember he advocated pensioners use the gig economy to gain the extra income he was allowing them to earn without impacting pension entitlements.<br/>
<br/>
He didn’t know the industrial relations legislation was going to hit the gig economy hard.<br/>
<br/>
It is understandable an ALP government would seek to upgrade the environmental rules set down in the 1990s. But the right way to go about it is to bring the community together with wide consultation — just as was done in the 1990s.<br/>
<br/>
I am told one version of the environmental secrecy technique was used before the industrial relations bill was put on the parliamentary table. The industrial relations blueprint was a total mess and will endanger our economy. And its “loopholes” title was also in the Orwell tradition.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-albanese-government-is-hiding-many-dark-environmental-secrets/news-story/8da7109dd5622482b6cdd70f8a246632">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-albanese-government-is-hiding-many-dark-environmental-secrets/news-story/8da7109dd5622482b6cdd70f8a246632</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-50471449305013134912024-03-12T18:14:00.002+13:002024-03-12T18:14:28.501+13:00<br> <br/>
<b> Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data</b><br/>
<br/>
Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.<br/>
<br/>
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.<br/>
<br/>
But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.<br/>
<br/>
Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”<br/>
<br/>
The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.<br/>
<br/>
The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.<br/>
<br/>
Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.<br/>
<br/>
Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.<br/>
<br/>
But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.<br/>
<br/>
With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.<br/>
<br/>
“For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.<br/>
<br/>
“And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”<br/>
<br/>
The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.<br/>
<br/>
“The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”<br/>
<br/>
In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.<br/>
<br/>
Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.<br/>
<br/>
“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”<br/>
<br/>
“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.<br/>
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.<br/>
<br/>
“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”<br/>
<br/>
Homogenization<br/>
<br/>
One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”<br/>
<br/>
According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.<br/>
<br/>
These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.<br/>
<br/>
Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.<br/>
<br/>
But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.<br/>
<br/>
“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.<br/>
<br/>
Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.<br/>
<br/>
One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.<br/>
<br/>
He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.<br/>
<br/>
“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”<br/>
<br/>
This is “very bizarre,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.<br/>
<br/>
These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.<br/>
<br/>
More here:<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800">https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800</a>
</p>
********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> NZ Government Removes Climate Targets from Transport Plan</b><br/>
<br/>
Climate targets are no longer a priority under the New Zealand government’s latest plan for the transport sector.<br/>
<br/>
In its recently released draft policy statement (pdf) on land transport, the National-led coalition government outlined its investment strategy for the next decade with an estimated total spending of NZ$20 billion (US$12.3 billion).<br/>
Under the draft plan, while the government is committed to reducing carbon emissions by facilitating the electrification of New Zealand’s vehicle fleets, it does not consider climate targets a priority.<br/>
<br/>
Instead, the government’s top priority is to support economic growth and productivity through investing in transport projects.<br/>
<br/>
It also wants to raise maintenance levels and enhance the resilience of state highways and local and rural roads, as well as improve the transport network’s safety and value for money.<br/>
<br/>
This marks a significant change compared to the previous Labour government, which identified climate change as a key issue of its transport policy.<br/>
<br/>
The shift in focus also means that relevant government departments and agencies may not be subject to emission reduction requirements when making transport investment decisions.<br/>
<br/>
The government stated that the new plan would help build and maintain a transport system that allowed people to travel quickly and safely.<br/>
<br/>
Among the investments laid out in the report were $2.3 billion for public transport services and $2.1 billion for public transport infrastructure over the next three years.<br/>
<br/>
The government also planned to spend another $3.1 billion to $4.8 billion to fix potholes on state highways and local roads.<br/>
<br/>
“Over the next three years, our investment of around $7 billion per year prioritises economic growth and productivity, increased maintenance and resilience, safety, and value for money,” Transport Minister Simeon Brown said in a statement<br/>
<br/>
“It balances the need for investing in new projects while ensuring our transport system is maintained to a high standard.”<br/>
<br/>
Strong Criticism from Climate Change Advocates<br/>
<br/>
Following the government’s announcement, All Aboard Aotearoa, a coalition of advocacy groups that supports a net zero transport system, lashed out at the draft plan, calling it a “disgrace.”<br/>
“This is a transport plan that wouldn’t have been out of place in 1955 in Los Angeles,” Paul Winton, a trustee of All Aboard Aotearoa, told Radio New Zealand.<br/>
<br/>
“Back in the days, when they thought that building roads and suburbs as far as the eyes could see was something that would drive the economy and drive better lives for people. But 60 years later, we know that is not the case.”<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Winton also warned that the government would face legal challenges from activists if it adopted the draft plan.<br/>
<br/>
“The wires are running hot with the various legal activists at the moment looking at how they can curtail this destructive approach to transport planning,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, Ia Ara Aotearoa Transporting New Zealand, a road freight peak body, welcomed the government’s new policy.<br/>
<br/>
“We’re pleased to see the government following through on their election commitments to re-start the road building pipeline, focus on the dangerous and potholed condition of our streets and highways, and avoid road user charges and fuel excise increases in their first term,” said Interim CEO Dom Kalasih.<br/>
<br/>
“Over the past few years, our members were disappointed to see revenue from vehicle users diverted into unproductive investments in rail, coastal shipping, and walking and cycling, while the condition of the roads continued to decline. It’s great to see Minister Brown committing to turning this around, despite challenging fiscal constraints.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/nz-government-removes-climate-targets-from-transport-plan-5604742">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/nz-government-removes-climate-targets-from-transport-plan-5604742</a>
</p>
*****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Swedish Electric Buses Charged By Diesel Generators</b><br/>
<br/>
We are constantly being told that we should switch to electric vehicles to reduce climate emissions<br/>
<br/>
In Sweden there is a company called X-trafik that operates busses in the cities of Gävle and Sandviken. They have bought in 52 electric busses from the Chinese company BYD in order to become “environmentally friendly”.<br/>
<br/>
However, this ‘green’ shift has caused massive chaos with freezing busses in the ice cold Swedish winter and hundreds of cancellations.<br/>
<br/>
Of course, all paid for by the Swedish tax payer.<br/>
<br/>
Turns out that the electric busses didn’t have enough range and they couldn’t charge the busses fast enough, which led to up to 100 busses being cancelled every day, leaving people stranded in the cold Swedish winter.<br/>
<br/>
In fact, there simply isn’t enough energy and infrastructure to go around in order to charge all these new electric busses.<br/>
<br/>
The Solution?<br/>
<br/>
They have now brought in massive diesel generators to be able to charge the electric busses – this of course at an extra cost.<br/>
<br/>
Yes, you read that correctly. They cannot charge the new electric busses because there isn’t enough charging capacity to go around.<br/>
<br/>
This reminds me of how they had to use diesel generators to keep wind turbines in Scotland warm during the winter.<br/>
<br/>
It sounds very funny, until you think about the fact that YOU are paying for this madness.<br/>
<br/>
So they had to bring in DIESEL generators in order to charge these new “environmentally friendly” busses.<br/>
<br/>
You literally cannot make this up.<br/>
<br/>
People are being told that it is good for the environment, but in reality they are getting scammed.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/swedens-electric-buses-charged-by-diesel-generators/">https://principia-scientific.com/swedens-electric-buses-charged-by-diesel-generators/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Households pay after Highland wind farms earn £68 million for nothing</b><br/>
<br/>
Static wind turbines in the Highlands cost consumers nearly £68 million in 2023.<br/>
<br/>
They accounted for more than one-quarter of all Scottish wind farms receiving “constraint” payments for zero energy output, new figures show.<br/>
<br/>
According to the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a lion’s share of such payments to UK wind energy suppliers found its way north of the border last year.<br/>
<br/>
Of the £307.2m total for the whole of Britain, the National Grid Electricity System Operator (National Grid ESO) paid a record £275.3m to a total of 86 Scottish generators.<br/>
<br/>
The Highlands led the pay-out league in terms of wind farm numbers, with 22 sites across the region getting payments totalling £67.8m.<br/>
<br/>
Top of the constraint payments league table in the area is SSE Renewables’ 66-turbine Stronelairg wind farm, near Fort Augustus, which received nearly £11.6m.<br/>
<br/>
But the two biggest earners in Scotland were both offshore.<br/>
<br/>
Moray East wind farm, a 100-turbine development in the Cromarty Firth, received nearly £43m for machines delivering no energy.<br/>
<br/>
And the 114-turbine Seagreen scheme off the coast of Angus earned constraint payments totalling nearly £40m.<br/>
<br/>
An onshore wind farm, Clyde, near Abington in South Lanarkshire, comes in third at nearly £16.9m.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/6390107/households-pay-after-highland-wind-farms-earn-68-million-for-nothing/?mc_cid=1ef8be501e&mc_eid=cc88839e92">https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/6390107/households-pay-after-highland-wind-farms-earn-68-million-for-nothing/?mc_cid=1ef8be501e&mc_eid=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-84866124403979516122024-03-11T18:37:00.002+13:002024-03-11T18:37:26.232+13:00<br><br/>
<br/>
<b> Polar Bears and Coral Reefs Are Doing Just Fine</b><br/>
<br/>
We live on a beautiful planet, filled with a dizzying assortment of interesting creatures and living organisms. The vast majority of people want to see that life flourish, so it is no wonder that particularly attractive species like cute (usually) polar bears and colorful corals are often used to promote climate alarmism.<br/>
<br/>
Corals and polar bears are two very different kinds of animals in all ways but one: climate alarmists love to claim they are particularly threatened by the modest warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age. Those claims are false.<br/>
<br/>
For coral reefs, changes in ocean pH and temperature can cause bleaching, and sometimes death. Therefore, a change over time in both of those variables due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) supposedly will lead to mass elimination of corals around the world.<br/>
<br/>
It is true that sudden changes in temperature and other water conditions can cause bleaching, which occurs when the symbiotic algae that gives coral structures their color is killed or jettisons itself. However, what is not true is that this phenomenon always or even usually leads to coral death. In reality, decades of research have shown that corals often bounce back from these events, including in cases where scientists had previously labeled the reef as a total loss.<br/>
<br/>
Such was the case with Coral Castles reef, which was bleached by a 1998 El Niño event. When scientists returned to take another look in 2015, they were stunned to find it thriving. This occurred despite the fact that they had predicted the reef would take 100 years to recover. Later, the researchers stated in a press release that “[o]ur projections were completely wrong.”<br/>
<br/>
Coral polyps, the anemone-like animals that actually build the reef structure, can struggle in “too much” heat. But corals typically thrive in warmer waters, not cold, and have survived for the past 60 million years through periods where temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher (and lower) than they are today. The vast majority of corals exist in tropical or subtropical waters, near the equator, and rather than disappearing, have been expanding their range slightly towards the poles amid recent modest warming trends.<br/>
<br/>
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR), subject of frequent climate alarmist propaganda, is also doing fine. Recent bleaching events, especially around 2012, in the GBR were hailed as the permanent end of the reef by climate doomsayers. However, the GBR had other plans. In 2022, the GBR saw the highest coral extent on record.<br/>
<br/>
That’s the tropics; now we put on the long underwear and look to the far North, to probably the most famous animal poster child for the supposed threat of climate change: the polar bear.<br/>
<br/>
Polar bears are threatened, we are told, because summer sea ice is melting, and soon the polar bears will not have access to their traditional hunting grounds and prey. This sounds like common sense, but even common sense is sometimes wrong, as with the polar bears.<br/>
<br/>
Far from dying off from a little warming, polar bear numbers have substantially increased since the 1960s, when they were protected from overhunting. Recent estimates put their population somewhere around 32,000 individual bears, three times as many as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted in the 1960s. While some subpopulations have seen declines, new subpopulations are still being discovered. Polar bears have survived during periods of Earth’s history when summer sea ice was basically nonexistent, like during the much warmer Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago.<br/>
<br/>
Photographs of starving, sickly bears circulated in the media are intentionally misleading. They are meant to paint a picture that is very different than reality. Data show that polar bears are carrying more fat into the winter months than they did in decades prior, and they have better rates of cub survival and more stable litter sizes. The overall outlook for polar bear welfare looks highly promising.<br/>
<br/>
In short, real-world data show that both polar bears and coral reefs are doing far better than alarmists would have you believe is the case based on flawed climate models. Stick to the data, and you will find good news for animal and nature lovers everywhere.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://heartland.org/opinion/polar-bears-and-coral-reefs-are-doing-just-fine/">https://heartland.org/opinion/polar-bears-and-coral-reefs-are-doing-just-fine/</a>
</p>
*******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Convincing Proof That NET ZERO Is An Utter Waste Of Resources</b><br/>
<br/>
Peter J. Morgan writes: 21 February 2024<br/>
<br/>
Let us never forget that the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was deliberately morphed by its promoters to become “Climate Change”. This was a deliberate obfuscation, and now people, who should know better, use the term ‘climate change’ when they mean ‘the changing climate’ brought about by natural forces, not more atmospheric CO2.<br/>
<br/>
Just over three and two years ago respectively, Physicists Prof. Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht and Coe et al. (David Coe, Dr Walter Fabinski and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb) independently calculated from fundamental physics and the HITRAN database of spectroscopic properties of gases, that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth of the IPCC’s ‘best estimate’ (read ‘best guess’). (The climate sensitivity of a greenhouse gas is defined as the increase in Earth’s mean temperature caused by every doubling of the atmospheric concentration of that gas.)<br/>
<br/>
Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane is 0.06 Celsius degrees, and that of nitrous oxide is 0.08 Celsius degrees. IMHO, all four physicists deserve to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, for proving that carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas, and in Coe et al.’s case, that methane and nitrous oxide are, too. In truth, CO2 is essential to all life on Earth, and is not a pollutant, despite the fact that in their ignorance, greenies and the MSM ignorantly and persistently claim that it is. Far from being a major problem necessitating that mankind’s emissions of that gas be drastically curtailed, more of it would be beneficial in feeding an increasing global population, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for irrigation and pesticides.<br/>
<br/>
Water vapour, which is ever-present naturally, and is absolutely out of the control of mankind, is the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. Earth’s water cycle is in truth the omnipresent grand air conditioner and atmosphere cleanser. The lead author of Coe et al., David Coe, has calculated that it will take about 250 years from now for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to double from today’s 420 ppm to 840 ppm, by which time Earth’s mean temperature will have increased by only 0.5 Celsius degrees above what it would have been had the atmospheric concentration of CO2 remained constant at 420 ppm.<br/>
<br/>
That in no way means that earth’s mean temperature will have increased by 0.5 Celsius degrees over those 250 years – it may actually have decreased due to natural causes overwhelming the tiny warming effect of CO2. Nobody knows enough to make accurate predictions of it. Thus there is no climate crisis and there never will be.<br/>
<br/>
Earth’s climates are forever changing due to natural causes that overwhelm the effect of increasing carbon dioxide. Thus NET ZERO is an utter waste of resources, for ZERO EFFECT.<br/>
<br/>
Before anybody can legitimately claim that Physicists Schildknecht and Coe et al. are wrong, they must follow the long-established norms of physics and provide proper scientific refutations of both the Schildknecht and Coe et al. papers.<br/>
<br/>
Note 1: Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted.<br/>
<br/>
Note 2: The Legal Profession regards what an expert says as being evidence, whereas the Engineering Profession regards that as being merely opinion (otherwise known as testimony). To the Engineering Profession, experts’ opinions are not evidence unless they are based on verifiable physical evidence. Many Court judgements have been flawed because of the failure of the Legal Profession, which includes the Judiciary, to grasp these important facts.<br/>
<br/>
Note 3: Nobody has ever provided any verifiable physical evidence that carbon dioxide – let alone the tiny fraction of it produced by mankind – causes any significant global warming. Not the IPCC. Not the Royal Society. No state meteorological office. No climate scientist. All they have is the output of computer models based on false assumptions.<br/>
<br/>
Note 4: The government of China, knowing all this, is building new coal-fired electricity generating capacity at a rate of more than 1000 MW (Huntly-size) every week. India also knows all this and is striving to outdo China’s build rate. More CO2 reduces plants’ need for water and is beneficial to plant growth. More CO2 is therefore helping to green our planet.<br/>
<br/>
Note 5: Australasia (i.e., New Zealand and Australia) emits just under 1% of all the world’s GHGs. Cutting Australasia’s emissions to zero – if indeed that were possible, which it isn’t – would not make a measurable difference to global mean temperature. Instead.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/convincing-proof-that-net-zero-is-an-utter-waste-of-resources/">https://principia-scientific.com/convincing-proof-that-net-zero-is-an-utter-waste-of-resources/</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Look to Germany to See America’s Future Under the Green Energy Agenda</b><br/>
<br/>
Germany’s gross domestic product has been falling since the third quarter of 2022, causing fears of the first 2-yearlong recession since the early 2000s. German farmers are openly protesting new climate regulations that would raise the price of diesel fuel, vital for tractors and farm machinery. This discontent is mirrored by the general public, which is opposed to higher energy costs that drag down the economy. Recent polls show a significant shift in public opinion that’s increasingly opposed to the coalition government.<br/>
<br/>
Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, where invariably one party secures a ruling majority, multiple German parties must form a coalition to reach the required 50%+1 majority threshold.<br/>
<br/>
Currently, the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Free Democratic Party comprise this coalition. The latest polls show all these parties polling far below their 2021 election results while the more right-leaning parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative for Germany, are surging in popularity.<br/>
<br/>
The recent economic slowdown has resulted in widespread political discontent, and the core of the slowdown has been disastrous energy policy.<br/>
<br/>
Instead of the government focusing on making energy affordable, it has continued its commitment to the “Energiewende”—the “Energy Transition”—a government project aimed at radically shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. One of the project’s stated goals is to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.<br/>
<br/>
Germany’s closure of its nuclear plants in April 2023 has made achieving net-zero targets significantly more challenging, given that nuclear power is capable of generating substantial amounts of carbon emissions-free electricity. The economic effect of these decisions is palpable for ordinary people, who feel it each month when paying their energy bills.<br/>
<br/>
According to the most recent data published by the German Federal Statistical Office, consumers have been paying an average of 46 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the United States during December was just under 13 cents per kWh.<br/>
<br/>
Cost disparities can also be seen in the price of gasoline. At the fuel pump, German consumers pay an average price of $7.23 per gallon, compared to $3.33 in America.<br/>
<br/>
These high energy costs are slowing other aspects of the economy, leading to dramatic losses in purchasing power for consumers and threatening to make production unprofitable for many companies. In addition, small businesses and farmers, which rely on electricity and fertilizers to operate, respectively, have been hit extremely hard by these recent price increases.<br/>
<br/>
In addition, the slowdown in global trade is profoundly affecting Germany’s export-centric economy, exacerbating the overall economic decline. Unfortunately for Germans, recent economic forecasts do not offer much hope either. Economists predict the economy to grow only by around 0.2% in 2024.<br/>
<br/>
Large German companies have already taken notice and acted accordingly. Around 67% of German companies have moved at least some operations abroad, citing high energy prices and inflation as their main reasons for leaving. This wide-scale deindustrialization is especially prevalent for the mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors—the backbone of the German economy.<br/>
<br/>
The tipping point came in February, when the famous family-owned dishwasher manufacturer Miele announced that it would cut thousands of jobs and move production to Poland. Luxury car manufacturer Porsche initially planned on building a new car battery manufacturing plant domestically and then switched gears by announcing plans to open the proposed plant in America. Both the lack of future investment and deindustrialization create a snowball effect, worsening the situation.<br/>
<br/>
Widespread dissatisfaction with Germany’s green policies should be a lesson for America. At the heart of the problem is Germany’s failure to allow for the energy industry to create affordable energy for its citizens. For years, the anti-business green energy agenda has decreased carbon emissions but increased the economic crisis. Germany’s experience shows that America needs a sound energy policy, not the arbitrary climate goals the current administration is pursuing.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/08/lesson-america-green-policies-crush-german-economy/">https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/08/lesson-america-green-policies-crush-german-economy/</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Unachievable at any cost</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Political blindness in Western Austraia</i><br/>
<br/>
Two weeks ago, we got a taste of the brave new world of renewable energy. Victoria’s grid collapsed on a hot and windy afternoon. 530,000 homes were left without power, train lines were shut down, schools and businesses had to close their doors, phones couldn’t be used even for emergency calls, and hundreds of sets of traffic lights were out of order.<br/>
<br/>
The same fate awaits Western Australia unless it reverses course on its ideological determination to pursue Net Zero.<br/>
<br/>
In June 2022, the WA state government announced its plan to close all coal-fired power stations (Collie, Muja, and Bluewaters) in the state by 2030 as part of a commitment to an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by that year.<br/>
<br/>
This will result in the removal of two-thirds of the WA network’s current electricity supply.<br/>
<br/>
The justification for this policy was the ‘overwhelming uptake of rooftop solar’, adding that, ‘…an estimated $3.8 billion will be invested in new green power infrastructure in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), including wind generation and storage, to ensure continued supply stability and affordability. This investment is expected to pay for itself by 2030-31 relative to the status quo of increasing electricity subsidies.’<br/>
<br/>
A detailed analysis conducted for the IPA by Senior Research Fellow Kevin You, former General Manager of Generation at Western Power Mark Chatfield, and this correspondent, demonstrates that this plan is neither feasible nor achievable at any cost.<br/>
<br/>
Our research shows that the cost to replace coal-fired power generation will be far more than the already huge sum of $3.8 billion – it will be far greater than even 10 times that amount.<br/>
<br/>
WA’s vast size means that it is geographically isolated, not only from the rest of the country, but internally. Therefore, it cannot be connected to a national energy grid, as is the case with states on the eastern seaboard. It must – and does – produce and rely on its own energy. Therefore, the huge fluctuations that arise from taking out coal in the main network cannot be addressed by relying on other states.<br/>
<br/>
In the southwest of the state, there has been an historical reliance on coal, but WA also has abundant energy in the form of gas.<br/>
<br/>
Following the discovery of large gas reserves in the mid-1970s on the North West Shelf, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBP) was constructed. It is one of Western Australia’s most critical pieces of energy infrastructure.<br/>
<br/>
The pipeline was privatised under the Court government in 1998, however, the easement surrounding the pipeline was not privatised. In fact, it was enlarged to accommodate potential future expansions to the gas pipeline’s transmission capacity.<br/>
<br/>
Until now, gas has been able to back up the increasing move to solar and wind. The state’s domestic gas reservation policy, which requires gas exporters to set aside 15 per cent of reserves for domestic use, has been considered a key to avoiding the energy shortages and price rises seen in the east.<br/>
<br/>
However, the warning signs are already there that the WA government’s Net Zero energy policy will not provide the stable, affordable, reliable power its proponents claim.<br/>
<br/>
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in a recent report suggested WA could face electricity blackouts as soon as 2025 unless it fills a forecast shortfall in energy supply.<br/>
<br/>
This report is the first time AEMO has given a forecast that takes into account WA’s commitment to transitioning off coal-fired energy by 2030, which it says would strip an estimated 1,366 MW of power generation out of the system.<br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately, the WA public is not being told of the true costs of the WA government’s 2030 renewable energy feel-good dream. There is the real threat that Western Australians will not be able to keep the lights on or turn on the air conditioning when they need to.<br/>
<br/>
A key finding of our analysis is that by phasing out coal by 2030 and without expansion of the DBP, even if:<br/>
<br/>
wind capacity from today is trebled<br/>
<br/>
battery capacity is increased nine-fold<br/>
<br/>
the state’s solar capacity is doubled<br/>
<br/>
Greater Perth and the Wheatbelt still risk blackouts close to four months in a year.<br/>
<br/>
Our analysis shows further that, theoretically to maintain the network in the absence of coal and gas, there would have to be a massive overbuild of renewables, requiring approximately:<br/>
<br/>
50 batteries, with a total capacity of 5000 MW, (currently one battery is in service)<br/>
<br/>
8,000 MW of solar factories, currently at 180 MW<br/>
<br/>
12,000 MW of wind factory capacity, currently at 1,040 MW<br/>
<br/>
4,134 MW of rooftop domestic solar capacity, currently it is 2,406 MW<br/>
<br/>
Once transmission easements, poles and wires are added in, we calculate the total cost to be – not $3.8 billion – but more than $52 billion, which is equivalent to over 130 per cent of budgeted general WA government spending for the financial year ending 2024.<br/>
<br/>
This can only result in ever-increasing energy bills for ordinary Western Australians. As far as we can tell, no thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done of the government’s plan, especially in relation to battery production and storage.<br/>
<br/>
Consider also the destruction of the environment – and much of the state’s available arable land – by plastering its landscape with solar panels and wind factories.<br/>
<br/>
All in a reckless pursuit of emissions reduction. Let’s not forget that Australia is responsible for just over 1 per cent of the world’s emissions.<br/>
<br/>
Less than one-fifth of that 1 per cent comes from WA, and about 6 per cent of that one-fifth of the 1 per cent comes from WA’s coal-fired power stations.<br/>
<br/>
Therefore, shutting them down would contribute to reducing roughly 0.013 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.<br/>
<br/>
For $52 billion, the money would be better spent keeping coal-fired power stations open for the foreseeable future and in the meantime expanding the DBP and buying gas, which is the only way to avoid blackouts while sensibly reducing emissions.<br/>
<br/>
If WA wants to avoid what happened in Victoria, its government must abandon its ideological fantasy of Net Zero, which, as our research shows, is unachievable at any cost.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/unachievable-at-any-cost/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/unachievable-at-any-cost/</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-15237779491824230182024-03-10T16:25:00.002+13:002024-03-10T16:25:33.023+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Microplastics have been found in human organs and blood, including the heart</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> The Green/Left have been getting hysterical about microplastics for some time but but this is the first substantial link among humans. So it cannot be accepted as a firm link until other studies have confirmed it</i><br/>
<br/>
Microplastics have been linked to increased risk of death in a small but significant study that is one of the first to establish a correlation between plastic in the body and Australia’s biggest killer – heart disease.<br/>
<br/>
More than half of people undergoing surgery for clogged arteries had blood vessels riddled with microplastics, the study found, and those patients had a far greater chance of heart attack, stroke and death compared to people whose arteries were free from plastic.<br/>
<br/>
Italian scientists recruited 257 people with carotid artery disease, where fatty plaque deposits restrict blood flow to the brain. Microplastics lurked in the plaques of about 60 per cent of patients.<br/>
<br/>
Three years after undergoing surgery, 20 per cent of the patients with microplastics in their arteries had died, or suffered a stroke or heart attack.<br/>
<br/>
Only 7.5 per cent of patients free from microplastics suffered the same fate.<br/>
<br/>
Once the scientists controlled for other risk factors, they put the people with microplastics in their arteries at four-and-a-half times greater risk of heart attack, stroke and death.<br/>
<br/>
The study spurred influential US public health expert Dr Philip J Landrigan to call for single-use plastics to be ditched.<br/>
<br/>
Finding microplastics in plaque was a breakthrough discovery in itself, which raised urgent questions, he said.<br/>
<br/>
“The first step is to recognise that the low cost and convenience of plastics are deceptive and that, in fact, they mask great harms,” Landrigan wrote in a The New England Journal of Medicine editorial.<br/>
<br/>
“Should exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics be considered a cardiovascular risk factor? What organs in addition to the heart may be at risk?”<br/>
<br/>
Microplastics are less than 5 millimetres in size, while nanoplastics are smaller than a micrometre and capable of entering cells. The particles are shed by sources including plastic bottles, food containers, synthetic clothing and car tyres.<br/>
<br/>
This small study is part of a developing line of inquiry into whether ingesting micro and nanoplastics increases risk of cardiovascular disease, which causes a quarter of all deaths in Australia.<br/>
<br/>
Scientists have uncovered microplastics in our brains, lungs and placentas. Last year, they were discovered in the human heart for the first time. The fragments lace our blood, urine and breastmilk. But research into the damage microplastics wreak on health is nascent and contentious.<br/>
<br/>
Much of what we do know is based on animal studies or analysis of cells, which are imperfect proxies of human bodies.<br/>
<br/>
In zebrafish and mice, ingested microplastics quickly migrated to “blood-rich” organs including the heart, kidneys and arteries, a 2023 review reported. The plastics trigger inflammation, oxidative stress and cell death, resulting in abnormal heart rates and impairment of cardiac function within study animals.<br/>
<br/>
More research across the board is urgently needed.<br/>
<br/>
The scientists behind the Italian artery study pointed out their finding identifies a correlation rather than a causation between microplastics and increased risk of death.<br/>
<br/>
It may be that the people with microplastics in their arteries had greater exposure to air pollution (which contains microplastic), which could be behind the increased risk of stroke and heart attack.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-tiny-killer-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke-and-death-20240306-p5fabn.html">https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-tiny-killer-linked-to-heart-attack-stroke-and-death-20240306-p5fabn.html</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> No Significant Warming in One of the Most Climate-Sensitive Parts of the Planet, Ice Core Data Show</b><br/>
<br/>
There has been no significant warming in one of the most climate-sensitive parts of the planet, analysis of Greenland ice core data shows, casting further doubt on the alarmist climate narrative.<br/>
<br/>
We are all familiar with the climate change scare narrative. Red coloured maps of the globe, polar bears stranded on ever diminishing ice floes, extreme weather events etc. When you read a climate change related article or scientific paper it nearly always opens with a statement underlining the severity of the situation facing mankind. What is usually lacking is perspective.<br/>
<br/>
I am not interested in ‘expert’ opinion unless it is supported by empirical data and perspective. Selected sources must be reliable and have ample past data to encompass solar cycle variation. Ideally these data need to come from a region of the planet that is sensitive to global warming. What data from the world of paleoclimatology fit that criteria?<br/>
<br/>
When snow falls, it contains a mix of oxygen isotopes. During warm periods, more heavy oxygen isotopes are found in the snow, while cold periods have more light oxygen isotopes. By analysing these ratios in ice cores, scientists can learn about past temperatures and climate conditions. The ice is laid down in annual layers which can be dated accurately. Consequently, we can construct an accurate temperature record where sufficient ice accumulation exists, such as in polar regions.<br/>
<br/>
If anthropogenic climate change is a real threat, due primarily to the burning of fossil fuels, then we are expecting to see a clear rise in temperature above and beyond the normal variation. This was attempted and published by Michael Mann et al. and is widely known as the hockey stick graph. The main problem with this graph is that it was constructed using 12 sets of proxy measurements which included three sets of ice core data. The ice core data went back only 500 years and the remaining extrapolation relied on tree ring data. There was considerable uncertainty of measurement which was highlighted in his original paper (Figure 1), and a period of 1,000 years provides us with limited perspective in relation to the impact of solar cycles.<br/>
<br/>
Note the light grey area is an estimate of the uncertainty of measurement and extrapolation.<br/>
<br/>
There seems to be a dearth of records that provide temperature proxies for recent times that are relevant to the sudden rise in carbon dioxide levels (1860 to current). However, I did locate data from two overlapping periods from Renland peninsula in Eastern Greenland. The two studies that reported the results from these ice core measurements had quite different themes. The first, which covered the period from 1960 to 10,000 BC, commented on the high temperatures in the Holocene period and the impact on the ice sheet. The second covering 1801 to 2014 examined local site variability. The creation of these datasets was a gargantuan effort. It remains a mystery why these papers did not comment on the temperature trends or indeed try and link the two datasets. Below is a graph combining these two isotope ratio data sets (Figure 2). The black line (far right) is the key as it is a 20 year rolling average of the more recent dataset (brown dots). The first dataset (blue dots) has data points every 20 years, so this rolling average enables a more valid comparison.<br/>
<br/>
These data tell us we’re in one of the coldest spells in the approximately last 9,000 years. Was the only way up? Virtually all global records indicate a steady warming in recent times. I have added green lines to help visualise the ‘normal’ variation in the last 9,000 years. Clearly recent warming is within this normal variation.<br/>
<br/>
I have added another graph (Figure 3) with linear trend lines to each of the datasets to demonstrate how important perspective is in assessing climate change. If we take the trend from 1801 to 2014 (purple dashed) and compare it with that from the last 10,000 years (green line) it seems alarming. But from the longer trend the reader can see that variation in both sets of data is quite normal.<br/>
<br/>
There is also a serious lack of agreement between the Mann hockey stick graph (Figure 1) and these data. It should be borne in mind when making this comparison that the Mann graph attempted to reconstruct temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere whereas the data I have cited here are from a specific area of Eastern Greenland.<br/>
<br/>
The next graph (Figure 4), focusing on the overlap period (1800 to 2014), provides the degree of validity of aligning these two datasets. There appears to be excellent correlation when comparing the black and red lines, implying the data are good proxies for temperature.<br/>
<br/>
In summary, these data indicate there is no significant global warming signal coming from one of the most sensitive parts of the planet. Any warming may be latent, but this seems to be a bit of a stretch.<br/>
<br/>
This absence of a signal could be explained by the fact that the relationship of carbon dioxide to global temperature is logarithmic and above a certain concentration there is minimal direct impact relative to solar cycles.<br/>
<br/>
There are many climate scientists who have devoted their lives to saving mankind but unless these data are invalid, they need to return from the chill winds of the polar regions. Is it game over for the climate change scare narrative?<br/>
<br/>
<i> See original for graphics</i><br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/08/no-significant-warming-in-one-of-the-most-climate-sensitive-parts-of-the-planet-ice-core-data-show/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/08/no-significant-warming-in-one-of-the-most-climate-sensitive-parts-of-the-planet-ice-core-data-show/</a>
</p>
****************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Climate dieting: Eating our way to a brave green world</b><br/>
<br/>
It had to happen eventually I suppose. An expert group (advising the National Health and Medical Research Council) has decreed that Australia’s official nutritional guidelines must detail the carbon dioxide footprint of each food group they cover. The implication is clear. When we reflect on our dietary habits, we need to consider not only our own health and wellbeing, but the impact of what we consume on the earth’s atmosphere and weather patterns.<br/>
<br/>
Man, it appears, is no longer an end in himself. For the religious, that divinely ordained creature made in the image of God. And for humanists, the starting point and destination of all ethical value and merit. He is not even Hamlet’s ‘quintessence of dust’, ultimately signifying nothing. No, he is a pest and nuisance, a blight on the otherwise pristine environment. If, for understandable electoral reasons, he can’t be eradicated entirely, his malign footprint must at least be made smaller, according to these experts. The sooner this can be done, the better.<br/>
<br/>
You might think this is peak folly for climate change madness. A veritable ‘jump the shark’ moment. But if insanity, as G.K. Chesterton once observed, is following an idea to its outermost logical consequence, it may only be the beginning.<br/>
<br/>
No doubt, our food packaging will soon have to detail the contents’ carbon footprint, perhaps also the menus in our restaurants and cafes. Perhaps the nutrition experts will come up with a ‘net zero’ sustainability deduction to apply to our recommended daily calorie intake. If we all lose a little too much weight and muscle mass in the process, perhaps to the point of shortening our life spans, that’s an added bonus.<br/>
<br/>
Of course, our carbon dioxide footprint is not limited to what we consume. With every exhalation, after all, we deposit this ‘pollutant’ into the atmosphere. (I will draw a veil over the specific category of human emissions which accompany indigestion.) Vigorous exercise must therefore be frowned upon. And perhaps too any kind of activity, including love-making, which increases our respiration rate.<br/>
<br/>
Indeed, if human life is the problem, perhaps we need to revise our euthanasia guidelines accordingly. As a civilised community, we might still set a high bar for people wanting to take this irreversible step, but if the purely medical arguments in any particular case are finely balanced, climate experts may well argue, why not allow sustainability concerns to decide the matter? Not only would the terminally afflicted be put out of their misery, they would have the consolation, as they take their final climate-damaging breath, of knowing they were saving the planet.<br/>
<br/>
While it may clothe its arguments in morality and appeal to (some confected distortion of) science, the climate change movement is ultimately concerned with power. The power of the few over the many, which Lenin famously identified as the basic question of politics. The more honest climate advocates admit this openly, arguing that no part of our lives must remain untouched in the fight against global warming. All policy and regulatory levers must be deployed in this campaign.<br/>
<br/>
Just think about what this means. In the pursuit of arbitrary, ideologically-informed and utterly pointless emission reduction targets, our traditional policy and regulatory goals are being sacrificed. So too, the integrity of our traditional regulatory regimes.<br/>
<br/>
Our new nutritional guidelines, we are told, will no longer be purely about our health. If this sounds shocking, it is nothing new. Our energy sector regulations long ago abandoned the objective of cheap and reliable power. Indeed, by embracing intermittent wind and solar, they are working against it. Planning and environmental regulatory regimes have been similarly corrupted, giving intermittent energy developers free rein to do their worst in the face of local protests. Even financial and corporate regulation is in play: the quaint idea of a level investment playing field for capital has given way to political incentives to plough money into green activities. History tells us that crony capitalism always ends in tears and a huge taxpayer bill, but apparently this can be disregarded.<br/>
<br/>
As we rush headlong in pursuit of our brave green world, the electorates of other Western countries are starting to have doubts, including in the UK, the US and many continental European countries. And of course, China and India, who account for almost all the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions growth, never joined the crusade in the first place. Why this blindness in Australia? Why this folly?<br/>
<br/>
In 1984, Barbara Tuchman wrote a book, The March of Folly, identifying the worst examples of government folly in history. Her starting point? The Trojans accepting, against all good sense, a wooden horse from their Greek enemy. Governments are guilty of folly, she explains, when they adopt policies which can only end in disaster for their people. The major cause of folly, Tuchman points out, is ‘wooden-headedness’, an insistence on ‘assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs’.<br/>
<br/>
The ‘surpassing wooden-head of all sovereigns’, in Tuchman’s view, was Philip II of Spain who believed he could conquer England with his Armada in 1588. For Philip, according to an unnamed historian, ‘no experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence’. Far from a character flaw, this would seem to be an essential prerequisite for a climate change minister.<br/>
<br/>
The single greatest instance of government folly in my lifetime, and there has been a great deal of competition, was our catastrophic bipartisan response to the Covid pandemic. Our health bureaucrats, both state and federal, were at the very heart of this. You would hope that they have been chastened by the experience, even if they have never (to date) been properly held to account. The experts wanting to hijack our nutritional guidelines appear to have learnt nothing however.<br/>
<br/>
I always try to end my columns with a constructive suggestion. I direct this at all those in government working on climate change interventions. When announced, these should indeed include accurate information on the negative footprint they will leave. Not on the earth’s atmosphere, but on our freedoms, standard of living and quality of life.<br/>
<br/>
Now that would be a public service.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/climate-dieting/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/climate-dieting/</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Why the truth about weather disasters matters</b><br/>
<br/>
Watching the news, you get the sense that climate change is making the planet unlivable.<br/>
<br/>
We are bombarded with images of floods, droughts, storms and wildfires. We see not only the deadly events nearby but also far-flung disasters when the pictures are scary enough.<br/>
<br/>
Yet the impression this barrage of catastrophe gives us is wildly misleading and makes it harder to get climate change policy right. Data shows climate-related events such as floods, droughts, storms and wildfires aren’t killing more people. Deaths have dropped precipitously. Across the past decade, climate-related disasters have killed 98 per cent fewer people than a century ago.<br/>
<br/>
This should not be surprising because the trend has been obvious for many decades, although it rarely gets reported. A century ago, in the 1920s, the average death toll from weather disasters was 485,000 a year. In 1921, the New York Herald headlined its full-page coverage of droughts and famines across Europe “Deaths for Millions in 1921’s Record Heat Wave”. Since then, almost every decade there have been fewer deaths, with 168,000 average dead per year in the 1960s and less than 9000 dead per year in the most recent decade, 2014-23.<br/>
<br/>
The 98 per cent drop in climate-related deaths is revealed by the most respected international disaster database, which is the gold standard in measuring these impacts. It’s reliable because very deadly catastrophes have been documented fairly consistently across the century.<br/>
<br/>
It is true that smaller events – often with far fewer or no fatalities – are likelier to have been overlooked in the past because there were fewer people and less advanced technology. That is why some media and climate campaigners increasingly point to a rise in reported events (rather than the declining death toll) as evidence that climate change is ravaging the planet.<br/>
<br/>
But all of the increase has been in less serious events, whereas more deadly events are few and declining. The “rise” is due to technology and the global interconnectedness that allows much better reporting of ever-smaller events, wherever they take place.<br/>
<br/>
This is clear because the increase is seen in all categories of disasters measured – not only weather disasters but also geophysical disasters such as volcanoes and earthquakes, and technological disasters such as train derailings. Not even radical climate activists claim that climate change is causing more trains to derail or more volcanoes to erupt.<br/>
<br/>
That is why fatalities provide a much more robust measure. These are falling dramatically because richer, resilient societies are much better at protecting citizens than poorer, vulnerable ones. More resources and innovation mean more lives saved. Research shows this consistently across almost all catastrophes, including storms, cold waves, and floods.<br/>
<br/>
One much-cited study shows that at the beginning of this century, an average of 3.4 million people experienced coastal flooding, with $US11bn in annual damages. Around $US13bn or 0.05 per cent of global GDP was spent on coastal defences.<br/>
<br/>
By the end of this century, there will be more people in harm’s way, and climate change will mean sea levels rise up to a metre. If we do nothing and keep coastal defences as they are today, vast areas of the planet will be routinely inundated, flooding 187 million people and causing damage worth $US55 trillion annually, costing more than 5 per cent of global GDP.<br/>
<br/>
But richer societies will adapt before things get that bad – especially because the cost of adaptation is low in comparison to the potential damage, at just 0.005 per cent of GDP. This sensible adaptation means that despite higher sea levels, fewer people than ever will be flooded. By 2100, there will be just 15,000 people flooded every year. Even the combined cost of adaptation and climate damages will decrease to just 0.008 per cent of global GDP.<br/>
<br/>
These facts help show why seeing the bigger picture matters. Linking every disaster to climate change – and wrongly suggesting that things are getting much worse – makes us ignore practical, cost-effective solutions while the media focuses our attention on costly climate policies that help little.<br/>
<br/>
Enormously ambitious climate policies costing hundreds of trillions of dollars would cut the number of flooded people by the end of the century from 15,000 to about 10,000 a year. While adaptation saves almost all of the 3.4 million people flooded today, climate policy can, at best, save just 0.005 million. The calculation is even more stark for poor countries, which have few resources and little disaster resilience.<br/>
<br/>
Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) suffered the largest recorded global death toll of 300,000 from a hurricane in 1970. Since then it has developed and improved warning systems and shelters. Across the past decade, hurricane deaths have averaged just 160, almost 2000 times lower. To help countries achieve fewer disaster deaths, we should promote prosperity, adaptation and resilience.<br/>
<br/>
Of course, weather disasters are just one aspect of climate change, which is a real global challenge that we should fix smartly. But when we are inundated with “weather porn” and miss the fact that deaths have dropped precipitously, we end up focusing on the least effective policies first.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/why-the-truth-about-weather-disasters-matters/news-story/cef72aaa4229a47274700eed0b8a51dc">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/why-the-truth-about-weather-disasters-matters/news-story/cef72aaa4229a47274700eed0b8a51dc</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-11548767241248318292024-03-07T19:43:00.002+13:002024-03-07T19:43:40.668+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Our Obsession With Control over nature</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Paul Abela below seems to think it is self-evident that mankind has no right to control nature. He bolsters that view by saying that changes in the natural world could be disastrous to us and implies the non-sequitur that therefore we should not make changes to the natural world. So he thinks there is both a moral and a utilitarian case for us to meddle as little as possible with nature.<br/>
<br/>
The utilitarian case is easy to refute: Civilization exists BECAUSE we have modified nature extensively. Modifying nature has been very GOOD for us and there is no reason to think that the control over nature that we have is suddenly going to harm us. It could conceivably do so but we are more than ever able to foresee problems coming our way and are more able to prevent those problems from actually arriving or to adapting to them in various ways if they do arrive<br/>
<br/>
The moral case is simply a bald assertion with no supporting argumentation. It runs up against the old philosophical conundrum of how do we find out what is right and wrong? Most analytical philosophers claim that there is no objective instance of right or wrong. It exists in the mind of men but different minds have different ideas of what it is. Is killing babies wrong? The ancient Greeks did not think so and they were highly civilized. So we cannot doubt Paul Abela's enthusiasm for nature but we are perfectly entitled not to share that enthusiasm. Mankind DOES have dominion over nature and there are no philosophical or utilitarian reasons to overturn or limit that</i><br/>
<br/>
It will cost you anywhere between $32,000 and $200,000. If you can afford it, you’re knowingly signing up for something that has a high risk of death. If you overcome any lingering fears you’ll see plenty of the 322 victims entombed in ice as you struggle slowly towards your destination. Climbing Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world, is not for the faint-hearted. But that doesn’t stop 800 people attempting to summit the mountain each year, with plenty of others waiting in line. It’s a dream for thousands, but it’s a bit of a head-scratcher as to why.<br/>
<br/>
The desire to summit Everest is a product of an obsession that has come to define our relationship with nature. We are addicted to overcoming its boundaries. To tame it. To defeat it. To beat it. The world constantly pits ‘man vs nature’. We compete against it and are obsessed with ‘beating’ it — even though it has no idea it’s competing. And in ‘defeating’ it, we believe we have somehow overcome it.<br/>
<br/>
This obsession with control is deep-rooted in the human psyche. It stems from the idea that nature exists in service of humanity, a belief that has its roots in religion. In Genesis 1:28, God commanded the human race to have dominion over every living thing. A belief shared by the ancient Greeks and best exemplified by Aristotle, who argued, “plants are evidently for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of Man; thus Nature, which does nothing in vain, has made all things for the sake of Man.”<br/>
<br/>
Little has changed in our attitude to living animals in the last 2000 years. There is a definitive hierarchy of which man is at the pinnacle. Wild animals, which are now remarkably few in number, are slaughtered by poachers to sell their ivory, fur coats, or other body parts. If wild animals aren’t slaughtered, they are placed in zoos for us to gawk at.<br/>
<br/>
Unbelievably, as late as 1969, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defined conservation as the “rational use of the environment to achieve the highest quality of living for mankind.”<br/>
<br/>
Driven by ego<br/>
<br/>
Our ambivalence to nature and the attitude that it exists in service of man has led to an exploitative relationship developing. Man is driven by ego, we are separate from nature and behave as if it exists for us to do as we please.<br/>
<br/>
Take our framing of the climate crisis as an existential risk that could destroy Earth. It will do nothing of the sort. The climate crisis is a crisis because it will destroy the conditions humanity needs to thrive on Earth. If those conditions change it will remain a haven to life, but that life will take a different form. One that is conducive to thriving in the new environmental conditions that are set to prevail.<br/>
<br/>
It’s humanity that has a problem. Not Earth. Yet, our ego-driven, human-centric view of the Earth means the idea Earth could exist without humanity is incomprehensible.<br/>
<br/>
We have formed a relationship with nature based on being some arrogant controller. How different things would be if humanity had an ‘eco’ perspective, and we used our intelligence and ability to work in symbiosis with nature for the common good. If we felt responsible and duty-bound to look after the Earth and act as its guardian.<br/>
<br/>
Forget about all of that. The benefits to us are all that matters — any negatives to the environment are dismissed as inconsequential — externalities that don’t exist when money and profits, the things that are prized above all else, are there to be made.<br/>
<br/>
The idea that nature may have some intrinsic value is nonsense. Its only role is to create value for humans if and when we choose to use it. That’s why 100 million sharks are killed each year for their meat and to make delicacies such as shark fin soup. It’s why over the last 50 years 17 percent of the Amazon Rainforest has been deforested. It’s why the African Elephant is mercilessly poached so we can slice off their tusks and use the ivory to make jewellery. The tragic ongoing ‘elephant holocaust’ means the African elephant faces extinction.<br/>
<br/>
Our obsession with control needs to be placed into context. Throughout human history, arguably up to the beginning of the twentieth century, we’ve had anything but control. Most people lived on the edge of existence, one failed crop away from famine and starvation. The natural world was dangerous, inauspicious, and brutal. There was little understanding of the processes and rules governing nature.<br/>
<br/>
The image of mother nature being some kind of nurturing force is a product of modern society. As the political scientist Robert Inglehart puts it in The Silent Revolution, for our ancestors, “one’s life expectancy is approximately thirty years. A woman spends most of her adult life in pregnancy and child-bearing, burying most of her offspring before they have grown out of childhood.” To sum it up, life was brutal and full of suffering.<br/>
<br/>
Our ancestors may have believed God gave us dominion over the natural world, but it is only in modern society that we have truly begun to control nature. This ability is the result of the powerful combination of science and technology.<br/>
<br/>
Knowledge is power<br/>
<br/>
Scientific breakthroughs best exemplify the axiom that knowledge is power. Science helps to understand the natural world; technology is the application of this understanding. The combination released humanity from the limits set on pre-industrial societies and led to vast improvements in human well-being. One of the most profound is the eradication of viruses that plagued humanity.<br/>
<br/>
Smallpox, the deadliest disease in human history, is estimated to have killed three hundred million people in the twentieth century alone. Having launched a vaccination campaign against the virus in 1967, the World Health Organization declared its successful eradication in 1977. This triumph is a marvel of modern science.<br/>
<br/>
The ultimate visual expression of our control over nature is the city. These human ecosystems have become enormous in scale. Greater Tokyo, home to 38 million people stretches to 22,000 km². There are 34 megacities with populations of over ten million people.<br/>
<br/>
When you look at a city, you look at a cityscape, not a landscape. The human ecosystem exists outside of nature and separates man from it. It is the ultimate expression of how we have tamed nature and moulded it to suit our needs.<br/>
<br/>
The problem we have now is that technology provides us with too much control. Technology has made us so powerful we’re changing the environmental conditions we need to sustain civilization. This fact would have been incomprehensible to those living a few generations ago. It’s still a little incomprehensible now.<br/>
<br/>
We’ve always existed in a technological age so we take our reality and the high living standards it provides for granted. If the outcomes of our technological age weren’t so apocalyptic, this ability to control the world would be astonishingly impressive.<br/>
<br/>
The way we interact with the environment has transformed beyond recognition and yet we still maintain a deep-rooted desire for control. If we have any chance of overcoming the ecological crisis our relationship with the natural world must transform.<br/>
<br/>
As awareness of our impacts on the Earth has increased, environmentalism has flourished. There have never been more people who not only have an appreciation for the wonders of the natural world, but are seeking to restore it and live in harmony with it.<br/>
<br/>
Environmentalists call for a shift to an eco perspective. This call stems from a place of humility and is grounded in an awareness that nature doesn’t need us to survive, but we depend on it for every conceivable thing.<br/>
<br/>
If the environment changes, we risk suffering social collapse. There must be some kind of acknowledgement that this isn’t a mutual relationship. Earth isn’t benevolent, it doesn’t exist to serve humanity.<br/>
<br/>
The thing is, you can't just wipe the slate clean and reimagine our relationship with nature. While the numbers of environmentalists swell, the human relationship with nature remains dominated by the arrogant controller. As long as it is, we will continue to disregard our influence on the natural world and hurtle towards a future of profound suffering. Seeing how deeply rooted our relationship with nature is, maybe that’s precisely what’s needed to create an epiphany. To shed the shell of the egotistical controller and embrace the humble eco guardian.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://medium.com/the-new-climate/our-obsession-with-control-0416fb7b0d68">https://medium.com/the-new-climate/our-obsession-with-control-0416fb7b0d68</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> CFACT Says Offshore Wind Violates Clean Air and Clean Water Acts</b><br/>
<br/>
In formal comments, CFACT has asked EPA to assess the adverse impact of the giant Virginia offshore wind project on air and water quality. The issue is far-reaching because all big offshore wind facilities could have these adverse effects.<br/>
<br/>
CFACT points to three specific impacts, two of which come from what are called the “wake effects” of operational offshore wind facilities. Both effects have been observed and modeled in large European offshore operations. I discuss these wake effects in my article HERE.<br/>
<br/>
The first effect CFACT calls the reduced energy air plume. They explain it this way:<br/>
<br/>
“The wake effect is the well-established fact that the air flow downwind of an operating wind turbine has significantly less energy than the air flow upwind. This is because the turbine’s job is to remove energy from the air flow, converting it into electricity. By some estimates, 50% of the energy is removed.”<br/>
<br/>
The Virginia offshore wind facility is removing energy from a 150-square-mile area, thus creating a massive reduced energy plume. The adverse impact is that this plume could increase the ozone levels in nearby urban areas. Ozone flourishes in low energy air.<br/>
<br/>
Immediately onshore from the Virginia wind facility lies the city of Virginia Beach. This sounds like a little tourist town, but it is, in fact, Virginia’s biggest city. It is half again bigger than Pittsburgh.<br/>
<br/>
Virginia Beach is presently in compliance with the EPA ozone standard, but not by much, so the adverse impact of the offshore wind-reduced energy plume is a serious concern. This will be a concern for other coastal urban areas that are onshore of big wind facilities. EPA should be required to take a hard look at this potential impact of reduced energy air on ozone compliance.<br/>
<br/>
The second wake effect is, in a way, the opposite in that there is too much energy. Each wind tower causes turbulence in both the air flow and the water currents as they pass by. This turbulent energy disturbs the sea floor so much that it creates a suspended sediments plume that flows with the current.<br/>
<br/>
Here again, we are talking about a 150-square-mile plume generator, so the result could be massive. There is a large body of scientific literature on the potential adverse impact of these sediment plumes on marine life.<br/>
<br/>
CFACT points out that EPA appears to be ignoring this serious impact in violation of the Clean Water Act. An impact of this magnitude should require a permit under the CWA, but no such permit has been made public.<br/>
<br/>
Perhaps it has not occurred to EPA to apply the CWA to offshore wind facilities. But it should. The law applies to the “navigable waters” of the US. The Virginia facility is certainly in navigable waters, as several shipping lanes have to be rerouted around it. All the offshore wind facilities presently in development had better be in US waters as the Feds are collecting billions in lease payments for them.<br/>
<br/>
At this point CFACT is merely raising the question, why isn’t the Clean Water Act employed in offshore wind industrialization?<br/>
<br/>
The third issue CFACT raises is technological. EPA is considering issuing an air quality permit for the construction and operation of the Virginia facility. Their primary concern is the exhaust emissions from the huge number of boat trips involved.<br/>
<br/>
CFACT points out that other countries are starting to use electric boats in order to avoid these emissions. In fact, there are service boats specifically designed to be charged directly from the wind facility’s output.<br/>
<br/>
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to call for the best available control technology. Electric boats would seem to fit this requirement, and the firms employed in carrying out this construction should be required to deploy them.<br/>
<br/>
Given these facts, it appears the EPA has not been doing a proper job of offshore wind impact assessment and permitting under both the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://heartland.org/opinion/cfact-says-offshore-wind-violates-clean-air-and-clean-water-acts/">https://heartland.org/opinion/cfact-says-offshore-wind-violates-clean-air-and-clean-water-acts/</a>
</p>
***********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The Guardian Should Know That One Mild Winter Is Not Climate Change, Nor Is It Alarming</b><br/>
<br/>
A recent article in The Guardian, “Vanishing ice and snow: record warm winter wreaks havoc across US Midwest,” describes the very mild winter much of the American Midwest has experienced this year, claiming that it is due to climate change. While a declining trend towards less-severe winters may in part reflect modest warming, the intensity of this winter’s warmth is more likely explained by El Niño.<br/>
<br/>
The Guardian asserts that ice cover across the Great Lakes has been declining since the early 1970s, writing that while the historic average for mid-February is around 40%, “this year it was about 4%.” Grand Forks, North Dakota; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota, are listed as having recorded their warmest winter, and the Guardian links to evidence in the form of an article from weather.com. Interestingly, directly beneath the states listed in the weather.com post referenced in the article is this statement, “[t]he Twin Cities’ warmest winter, by the way, was 146 years ago in 1877-78, when Rutherford B. Hayes was president.” The Guardian neglected to mention that.<br/>
<br/>
Climate change is the culprit, claims The Guardian, but their own weather.com source lists two natural causes for this year’s mildness, including El Niño and a lack of “persistent blocking patterns – such as the Greenland block – that pull cold air from Canada and lock it into the U.S. for longer than a few days.”<br/>
<br/>
Regarding El Niño, weather.com says “[w]armer winters are typical across the northern tier of states during a strong El Niño.”<br/>
<br/>
Continuing, weather.com reports:<br/>
<br/>
Despite a few recent storms, this season’s winter storm pace across the country is the slowest in 10 years. That’s left just 14% of the Lower 48 covered by snow as of Feb. 26. The warmth also left Great Lakes ice cover at a 51-year low for mid-February, including an ice-free Lake Erie and just a few small bays of Lake Superior with any ice.<br/>
<br/>
In case you missed the point, the ice was this low 51 years of global warming ago, when the Earth was not only cooler, but it was in a cooling trend. A recent post at Climate Realism covers this specific subject in more detail, with H. Sterling Burnett writing “the last time the Great Lakes ice coverage was this low in January was in the early 1970s, a time when global average temperatures were cooling, which many scientists claimed at the time could be a sign of a coming ice age.”<br/>
<br/>
In fact, ice coverage data for the Great Lakes show that coverage is highly variable from year to year. Plotted annual maximum data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory show as much. (See figure below)<br/>
<br/>
The data across all the Great Lakes do indicate that recent years have seen more below-average years, but high years are still found, and it depends on the individual lake. On Lake Superior, Erie, and Huron, for example, most winters touch the 90% ice coverage range. On Lake Michigan, which has lower ice coverage averages, the record ice coverage is tied between two years; 1977 and 2014. Lake Ontario likewise traditionally has less coverage, and has its record high in 1979, and second-highest ice coverage in 2015.<br/>
<br/>
The Guardian also says that a “report published in January found that the number of -35F (-37.2C) readings in northern Minnesota have fallen by up to 90%,” they point out that low temperatures play a role in weed and pest control, which is true enough, however they neglect to mention that extreme cold kills human beings as well, and at much higher rates than extreme heat does. They also fail to mention that longer, colder winters result in fewer crop rotations and production.<br/>
<br/>
In Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths, multiple studies back up the fact that cold is deadlier than heat all around the world. One study, published in the Lancet in 2021, found that while 600,000 people die globally from heat, over 6 million die from cold. (see the figure, below) Further, cold related deaths have declined at more than double the rate that heat related deaths have increased.<br/>
<br/>
The number of severely cold winters may be modestly trending downwards around the Great Lakes and across portions of the American Midwest, but almost everyone would agree that fewer -35℉ days is a blessing not a curse. This year’s winter is particularly mild not because of climate change but because of natural weather patterns, and a long-term trend in declining extreme cold is actually better for human survival. Contrary to The Guardian’s reporting, climate doomsaying is not an appropriate response to the available data.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climaterealism.com/2024/03/the-guardian-should-know-that-one-mild-winter-is-not-climate-change-nor-is-it-alarming/">https://climaterealism.com/2024/03/the-guardian-should-know-that-one-mild-winter-is-not-climate-change-nor-is-it-alarming/</a>
</p>
*********************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Environmentalism: from concern about clean air to throwing soup at the Mona Lisa</b><br/>
<br/>
Garrett Hardin was a professor of biology and environmental studies at UC Santa Barbara. His “commons” was a metaphor drawn from the traditional English practice of shared grazing and agricultural land to which all members of a community had access. Commons were inherently prone to abuse, Hardin argued, because every user of the commons will exploit it to maximize personal benefit without regard to the other users, leading ultimately to the collapse of the commons as a useful resource.<br/>
<br/>
Hardin extended the metaphor of the commons to include all natural resources, including the air, water, other species, even the entire Earth. The tragedy of Hardin’s expansive commons was the inexorable march to environmental doom, driven by the folly of human freedom. “No technical solution” could halt its march, no ingenious tinkering could fix the problem. Rather, Hardin asserted that the juggernaut could only be arrested through “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.” To save ourselves, we would have to give up many freedoms we take for granted, specifically “relinquishing the freedom to breed.”<br/>
<br/>
Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” is perhaps the most influential paper ever to come out of the field of ecology. Within its six pages were sown the seeds that have grown into the vast industry that is modern environmentalism. If you’ve ever wondered how environmentalism got from simple concern for clean air and water and preservation of wilderness and its wonderful creatures, to Greta Thunberg, Extinction Rebellion and throwing soup at the Mona Lisa, it was Garrett Hardin who drew the map.<br/>
<br/>
Hardin’s path to the tragedy of the commons was itself mapped out by the English economist and cleric, Thomas Malthus. When Thomas Carlyle famously cast economics as the “dismal science” — a “dreary, desolate… quite abject and distressing science” — it was Thomas Malthus he had in mind. Malthus’s economic philosophy was one of finitude and futility. Human populations always grew faster than could the food supply, he asserted, leading inexorably to famine, disease, perpetual poverty and war: the “Malthusian catastrophe.” Malthus’s economics stands in marked contrast to that of his near-contemporary Adam Smith’s more hopeful economics of free trade, free markets and the inscrutable “invisible hand” that would guide societies to prosperity and liberty. The history of economics has been a long contention between these two competing ideas.<br/>
<br/>
Malthusian economics considered people to be aimless particles pushed this way and that by powerful and indifferent forces. People are considered to have no agency whatsoever, or whatever agency they might have, encompass no other sentiment but selfishness. The only way out of the Malthusian catastrophe would be restraint of human nature, through “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon,” as Garrett Hardin put it. Tyranny<br/>
<br/>
A big part of Malthus’s appeal at the time was his mathematical argument, which imparted a faux certainty to his claims. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace both were inspired by Malthus’s mathematics, for example, however, Malthus’s mathematics were simplistic and naïve and failed to account for the fact that humans do, in fact, have individual agency — and that the range of moral sentiments was far wider than mere selfishness.<br/>
<br/>
Nevertheless, Malthusianism continues to find devoted acolytes wherever simplistic and naive mathematical presumptions reign. Presently, it is climate change that fits that bill, and it is climate change where the Malthusian tragedy of the commons is again rearing its head — no, having its head propped up, Weekend at Bernie’s style — by a group of twenty-three scholars (they always seem to come in packs) in the prestigious pages of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. There, they call for a “new paradigm” (that buzzword) to stave off the tragedy of the Anthropocene “planetary commons.”<br/>
<br/>
Their new paradigm goes beyond mere governments managing common resources, like sea-floor mineral prospecting. Rather, they are advocating a more ambitious program to take control of the “biophysical systems” that impart resiliency to the Earth’s function. These systems include the atmosphere, hydrosphere (oceans, lakes, rivers and aquifers), the biosphere (encompassing all of the Earth’s biota), the lithosphere (all terrestrial ecosystems, and the cryosphere — ice and snow). Exerting such control, they say, will require “mobilization of efforts at an unprecedented scale, including future research” (read spending), which can only be done through a “nested Earth system governance approach.” This will mean “[adjusting] notions of state sovereignty and self-determination,” taking on “obligations and reciprocal support and compensation schemes … comprehensive stewardship obligations and mandates,” all with the aim to protect “Earth-regulating systems in a just and inclusive way.” You get the idea: “following the science” means a world government that subordinates those pesky notions of self-government and national sovereignty.<br/>
<br/>
Doomsday scenarios are nothing new in the genre of “climate action.” Usually, such contributions bristle with weasel words such as “may,” “possibly,” “perhaps” and the ilk (e.g. the impending extinction of insects). Not so the planetary commons paper, which bristles with alarmist certitude. We are driving the Earth toward dangerous instability, rapidly pushing us past “tipping points” where the Earth will be plummeted irreversibly into disaster, making the Earth inhospitable to life itself. We are sinners in the hands of an angry goddess.<br/>
<br/>
The whole thing is a house of cards, which a little digging will expose. Let’s begin with that word in the title: “Anthropocene.” What does it mean? It sounds science-y, but in fact “Anthropocene” is a neologism proposed in 2000 that demarcates the past 250 years from the Holocene, the geological epoch that began around 11,000 years ago, and which encompasses the rise of modern humans. It is no accident that the Holocene-Anthropocene boundary is set at 250 years before the present: it coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.<br/>
<br/>
The Anthropocene is the stand-in for the eschatological End Times. Like the End-Times, it is defined by a basket of horrors and portents:<br/>
<br/>
An order-of-magnitude increase in erosion and sediment transport associated with urbanization and agriculture; marked and abrupt anthropogenic perturbations of the cycles of elements such as carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and various metals together with new chemical compounds; environmental changes generated by these perturbations, including global warming, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and spreading oceanic “dead zones”; rapid changes in the biosphere both on land and in the sea, as a result of habitat loss, predation, explosion of domestic animal populations and species invasions; and the proliferation and global dispersion of many new “minerals” and “rocks” including concrete, fly ash and plastics, and the myriad “technofossils” produced from these and other materials.<br/>
<br/>
No mention is made, of course, of the dramatic reductions of poverty, extensions of life spans, improved agricultural productivity, cleaner air and water, safer environments that also mark the Industrial Revolution. Those are Hardin’s “technical solutions,” to be dismissed as the false consciousness that merely delays the springing of the Malthusian trap. We best be wary.<br/>
<br/>
The Anthropocene is not a scientific term: it is an entirely political construction. Being able to sell it as scientific has long been a coveted tool to advance the climate change agenda. This has meant a long march through the institutions that govern geological nomenclature. That effort came to fruition in 2019, at a meeting of the International Union of Geological Sciences in Cape Town, where a vote was taken to formally recognize the Anthropocene as a geological epoch. It passed by a supermajority of 88 percent in favor, which by the rules of the Society, closed off the matter from further debate. What was the actual vote? Thirty-three individuals voted to recognize the Anthropocene, and four dissented. Was this scientific consensus? Technically it was, but we keep in mind the deceptive power of percentages: the 2022 membership of the Geological Society of America totaled 18,096. Remember these figures the next time we hear about a scientific “consensus.”<br/>
<br/>
With the Anthropocene established as a formal geological epoch, the door was opened for climate activists to advance a political agenda masquerading as “science.” The planetary commons paper, for example, asserts that we have already passed six of nine “tipping points,” putting us THIS CLOSE to catastrophe. That sounds dire, to be sure. But just what determines a tipping point, and how do we know we’re past it? One of the references cited in support of this claim is a paper (with many of the same authors as the planetary commons paper) which defines the “safe operating space” for the nine variables. What determines the limits of the “safe operating space”? Why, it’s the presumed conditions prior to the Anthropocene! The circle is thereby closed: the politically-defined Anthropocene is used to set the politically defined “safe operating space” for the Earth, which sets the course for “navigating” through the perilous Anthropocene. Follow the science! The agenda is clear: reverse the Industrial Revolution and return civilization to the illusory halcyon of the Holocene. This is the climate change echo chamber at work: a collection of mutually-reinforcing arbitrary presumptions dressed up in a science-y costume.<br/>
<br/>
It would be amusing were it not for the costume being flashy enough to take in the mid-wit rubes that constitute our present-day ruling class. Danger lurks there, which was expressed eloquently 264 years ago by Adam Smith in his 1759 Theory of Moral Sentiments:<br/>
<br/>
The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it… He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.<br/>
<br/>
Garrett Hardin was, in his time, also a “man of system,” and it’s worth remembering that our last flirtation with the tragedy of the commons did not end well, especially not for Garrett Hardin himself, who now seems to be somewhat of an embarrassment to our present-day presumptive “persons of system.” We seem to have learned nothing since 1968, or for that matter, since 1759.<br/>
<br/>
Will history repeat, this time as farce? Or will it be tragedy?<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/environmentalism-from-concern-about-clean-air-to-throwing-soup-at-the-mona-lisa/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/environmentalism-from-concern-about-clean-air-to-throwing-soup-at-the-mona-lisa/</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-74410373119816906872024-03-06T16:00:00.002+13:002024-03-06T16:00:58.816+13:00<br><b> EPA regulations on outboard motors send firm broke</b><br/>
<br/>
In 1907 Ole Evinrude, born Ole Andreassen Aaslundeie, an immigrant from Gjovik, Norway invented the first gasoline powered internal combustion two-stroke outboard engine practical enough for commercial production, and two years later, an icon was born. Evinrude Outboard Motors produced boat engines continuously for over 11 decades in their factory in Sturtevant, Wisconsin, just outside of Milwaukee, becoming a favorite of fishermen and watersports enthusiasts across North America and beyond. In 1935, Evinrude merged with competitor Johnson Outboards to form Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC.) OMC became a multi-billion dollar publicly traded fortune 500 company and dominated the outboard market for the better part of the 20th century. When OMC filed for bankruptcy in 2000, they still maintained one third of the outboard market despite the rise of the American giant Mercury Marine and foreign brands like Yamaha, Honda, and Tohatsu. In 2001, OMC’s Evinrude and Johnson brands were purchased by the Canadian company Bombardier Recreational Products (BRP.)<br/>
<br/>
New EPA regulations on emissions in the 90s and early 2000s nearly ended the production of two-stroke outboard motors entirely. Evinrude and Johnson attempted to modify existing technology in order to comply with the new regulations leading to mechanical problems and ultimately contributing to OMC’s demise, however despite BRP discontinuing the Johnson brand in 2007, Evinrude endured. New four-stroke outboards built by Evinrude’s competitors, while heavier and slightly less powerful, were very reliable and produced fewer emissions than the older two-stroke technology. However, in 2004, the engineers at Evinrude created their new E-TEC outboards that were much cleaner, even becoming the first outboard technology to win the EPA’s U.S. Clean Air Excellence Awards, which recognizes low emission levels. E-TEC engines typically emit 30-50% less carbon monoxide than comparable four-stroke outboards.<br/>
<br/>
Evinrude and their two-stroke engines continued to cede market share to their four-stroke competitors over the following years, although the E-TECs, and Evinrude’s new E-TEC G2 motors maintained a loyal customer base until the spring of 2020 when parent company BRP was forced to pull the plug for good. “Our outboard engines business has been greatly impacted by COVID-19, obliging us to discontinue production of our outboard motors immediately. This business segment had already been facing some challenges and the impact from the current context has forced our hand,” said José Boisjoli, President and CEO of BRP. “We will concentrate our efforts on new and innovative technologies and on the development of our boat companies, where we continue to see a lot of potential to transform the on-water experience for consumers.”<br/>
<br/>
Just like that 300 workers at Evinrude’s Wisconsin factory were out of a job and a company that had survived The Great Depression, two world wars, and bankruptcy was gone. Governor Tom Evers (D-WI), the man who deemed Evinrude’s workers “non-essential” won re-election in 2022 and Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) who made it illegal to use a boat with an outboard motor when she locked down her state, won re-election in a landslide. Even former President Trump has refused to accept any blame for the destruction caused by the lockdowns and his empowerment of Dr. Anthony Fauci, and will almost certainly be the GOP’s nominee for president again this year.<br/>
<br/>
Innovators at Evinrude, starting with Ole Evinrude himself, created the first marketable outboard, made them lighter and more practical, and 100 years later created engines that were more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly than their four-stroke competitors. There is no telling what potential innovations across the American economy, not only by this one company, are now impossible, or at the very least delayed, due to the calamitous economic conditions created artificially by the state.<br/>
<br/>
Voters seem more than willing to forget what their governments did to them in the spring of 2020 and beyond. As Herman Melville said “then all collapsed, and the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago,” our oceans, lakes, and rivers will surely forget old Ol Evinrude and his trusty outboards, but American boaters and anglers will remember all of the times Evinrudes got our families back to the boat launch in one piece, and something tells me those old engines will continue to do so for decades to come.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/02/27/covid-casualty/?omhide=true">https://catalyst.independent.org/2024/02/27/covid-casualty/?omhide=true</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Former World Bank economist warns of energy transition’s fiscal risks</b><br/>
<br/>
London, 5 March – In the run-up to Budget Day (6 March), a new paper by a former World Bank economist and published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation warns that the UK’s current decarbonisation timeframe is unrealistic and threatens to be economically and socially unsustainable.<br/>
<br/>
Professor Gordon Hughes’s paper comes two weeks after the “European Climate Investment Deficit report” warned that EU member states would have to fill an annual investment gap of €406 billion if its 2030 climate goals are to be met.<br/>
<br/>
In his paper, Hughes reveals that a realistic estimate of Britain’s planned energy transition also has an astronomical price tag. Large investments in capital-intensive technologies for producing and consuming non-carbon energy is estimated to be a minimum of 5% of GDP for the next two decades and might easily exceed 7.5% of GDP.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Hughes said:<br/>
<br/>
“There is no chance of borrowing an additional 5% or more of GDP annually for two decades to finance the energy transition. The only viable way of financing the UK’s energy transition is a drastic reduction in consumption to free up resources for the huge level of new capital investment required. Realistically the reduction in private consumption would have to be 8% to 10% for 20 years. Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war periods and even then never for more than a decade.”<br/>
<br/>
He added:<br/>
<br/>
“Ignoring the macroeconomic and fiscal constraints will almost certainly lead to yet another long-running policy fiasco like HS2 with results that achieve little in concrete terms. Rather than pretence and muddle, it would be better to extend the period and pace of the energy transition to match the resources that can realistically be afforded.”<br/>
<br/>
Lord Frost welcomed Prof Hughes’s economic realism and said:<br/>
<br/>
“The message in this briefing note could hardly be more urgent. Either we must be honest with the public and be clear that they are going to have to pay at a currently unanticipated level. Or we must extend the time period for the transition - that is, delay the net zero 2050 target, perhaps out till 2070 or 2075.<br/>
<br/>
Failure to do either - sadly, perhaps the most likely outcome - will mean that we simply muddle on, pretending we are making progress, spending at high levels, but achieving little. Meanwhile the rest of the world outside the West will look on, incredulous at this unprecedented act of economic self harm.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://mailchi.mp/cd067d7b8405/former-world-bank-economist-warns-of-energy-transitions-fiscal-risks-201336?e=cc88839e92">https://mailchi.mp/cd067d7b8405/former-world-bank-economist-warns-of-energy-transitions-fiscal-risks-201336?e=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> CO2 Coalition Takes the Science to Wyoming</b><br/>
<br/>
Wyoming has vast resources of coal, oil and natural gas. With 40% of the nation’s coal resources, the state has been the United States’ top producer since 1986, primarily from the Powder River Basin located in the northeastern part of the state. It is also a national leader in the production of oil and natural gas, ranking in the top 10 in production of both products.<br/>
<br/>
Yet, even though the Wyoming economy is heavily dependent on the mining and extraction of fossil fuels, its governor, Mark Gordon, has adopted a strong “decarbonization” policy. The science tells us that this is not a winning strategy for the people of Wyoming.<br/>
<br/>
The CO2 Coalition believes that public policy on such matters should be driven by scientific review and analysis, not political agendas. To provide such an analysis, we have produced this report, Wyoming and Climate Change: CO2 Should Be Celebrated, Not Captured.<br/>
<br/>
We also sent a team of climate experts from the CO2 Coalition,<br/>
<br/>
including Dr. William Happer, Dr. Byron Soepyan and Gregory Wrightstone to Wyoming to provide the facts concerning the huge benefits of carbon dioxide. This team presented the science at a hearing of the Wyoming Senate Agriculture Committee (pictured above.)<br/>
<br/>
The team also presented accurate science regarding Wyoming's climate to students at Gillette College, Laramie County Community College, and at the University of Wyoming.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Taking-the-Science-to-Wyoming.html?soid=1101509381788&aid=CMRLR5KMLE0">https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Taking-the-Science-to-Wyoming.html?soid=1101509381788&aid=CMRLR5KMLE0</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Unusable solar farms in Australia</b><br/>
<br/>
Northern Territory Chief Minister Eva Lawler says government-owned Power and Water Corporation could purchase four privately owned solar farms across the Top End in a bid to finally bring them online.<br/>
<br/>
The handful of solar farms were built near Katherine and in Darwin's rural area. However, they have been sitting disconnected from the Top End grid for at least four years.<br/>
<br/>
Power and Water has long held concerns about bringing the facilities online, fearing their power generation could be volatile and destabilise the Darwin-Katherine grid.<br/>
<br/>
When asked whether the solar farms could be purchased by the NT government, Ms Lawler said: "That's a possible option."<br/>
<br/>
"We need to be able to control the energy that comes from those, so it is an option," she said.<br/>
<br/>
Ms Lawler said the solar farms the government was interested in buying were currently owned by energy company ENI, but she refused to provide an estimated cost.<br/>
<br/>
The comments sparked criticism from opposition shadow treasurer Bill Yan, who questioned whether such a purchase would be the best use of taxpayer dollars. "The more important point is, can we afford to buy these things," he said.<br/>
<br/>
He also criticised the NT government's renewable energy rollout, saying the construction of these solar farms before infrastructure could handle them was "putting the cart before the horse".<br/>
<br/>
"Territory Labor led all these contracts to companies to build all these giant solar farms across the Top End," he said.<br/>
<br/>
"All of a sudden, the territory government found out they couldn't hook them up. The grid wasn't stable enough."<br/>
<br/>
The architect of the NT's "Roadmap to Renewables", Alan Langworthy, last year criticised the government's handling of the transition to 50 per cent renewables by 2030, saying "unrealistic" regulation was stymieing the commissioning of solar projects.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/nt-government-flags-possibility-of-buying-idle-solar-farms-from-private-operators-amid-renewable-energy-push/ar-BB1jl3Nb">https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/markets/nt-government-flags-possibility-of-buying-idle-solar-farms-from-private-operators-amid-renewable-energy-push/ar-BB1jl3Nb</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-63471706766982023862024-03-05T16:42:00.002+13:002024-03-05T16:42:40.095+13:00<br><b> Sea levels around NYC could surge up to 13 inches in 2030s due to climate change: state study</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> This was first predicted as imminent in the '80s by Jim Hansen, one of the early prophets of global warming, but there is still no sign of it happening</i><br/>
<br/>
Sea levels surrounding New York City are expected to rise at least 6 to 9 inches in the 2030s and potentially up to 13 inches in some areas due to climate change, according to state projections.<br/>
<br/>
The assessment done by the state Department of Environmental Conservations also claims that sea levels in the lower Hudson River could swell by 23 inches in the 2050s and up to 45 inches in the 2080s.<br/>
<br/>
“Sea level rise is one of the most direct and observable effects of climate change in New York and DEC is required by law to develop science-based sea level rise projections to guide decision making and permitting in the areas most at risk,” the DEC said in a statement.<br/>
<br/>
By the year 2100, downstate sea levels could surge by 25 inches to 65 inches. A worst-case scenario could see a staggering 114-inch rise by the end of the century under rapid ice melt projections.<br/>
<br/>
Such a dramatic rise in sea levels could decimate low-lying residential areas in the Big Apple that were pummeled during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.<br/>
<br/>
The DEC posted its projections of sea levels in the New York State Register, based on studies of global climate models. The agency is required to periodically post sea-level projections under the Community Risk and Resiliency Act.<br/>
<br/>
“New York is leading the nation to address the impacts of climate change, which include heatwaves, floods, more frequent storms, and sea level rise,” the DEC said.<br/>
<br/>
The sea level projections do not create any edicts or compliance obligations on local governments — though they are intended as a guide to assist state and local planners and regulators in making decisions to address more storm-related floods.<br/>
<br/>
Ultimately, both the rate of sea level rise and the level of rise over time will be determined by the severity of global greenhouse gas emissions, officials said.<br/>
<br/>
Continued high emission rates will lock in continued rapid warming of the ocean and lead to higher rates and levels of sea level rise, DEC said.<br/>
<br/>
Addressing climate change without hurting businesses and consumers is easier said than done.<br/>
<br/>
Gov. Kathy Hochul has faced criticism this year over a green push targeting a key chemical used in refrigerators and air conditioners that critics say could force business owners to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in new equipment.<br/>
<br/>
Small business owners warned the aggressive timetable to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, starting next year, could cripple businesses, icing out jobs and triggering price hikes on food items and other consumer products, as they attempt to comply with the costly mandate.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://nypost.com/2024/03/03/us-news/sea-levels-in-nyc-could-surge-up-to-13-inches-in-2030s-due-to-climate-change-state-study/">https://nypost.com/2024/03/03/us-news/sea-levels-in-nyc-could-surge-up-to-13-inches-in-2030s-due-to-climate-change-state-study/</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The American revolt against green energy has begun</b><br/>
<br/>
In a story filled with all the standard climate alarmist narratives, USA Today recently reported on the rising movement by local governments in the United States to refuse to permit unwanted wind and solar industrial sites in their jurisdictions.<br/>
<br/>
After setting the stage by parroting the Biden administration goals of “100 per cent clean energy by 2035, a goal that depends on the building of large-scale solar and wind,” USA Today points to the reality that such big, intrusive, ugly, and destructive industrial sites have been rejected by twice as many county governments as approved them. The writers complain that the rejections come about by some combination of “outright bans, moratoriums, construction impediments and other conditions that make green energy difficult to build,” but don’t go on to describe why the rejections are taking place.<br/>
<br/>
Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood.<br/>
<br/>
Those consequences and more have become increasingly clear as time has progressed, and that is making it harder for developers to gain acceptance from the communities that would serve as hosts. Such pushback is likely to grow more strident in the coming years as it becomes clear to citizens that their state governments have failed to enact effective regulatory structures requiring timely and full retirement and remediation of these industrial sites when their useful life has expired. By that time, these sites will most likely have been sold off by the big developers who built them to smaller companies that will be unlikely to be able to bear the enormous costs involved in full removal and remediation.<br/>
<br/>
But by then, it will be too late for the communities to protect their rights. The only real way to protect a city or county from these myriad impacts is to refuse to allow them to be built.<br/>
<br/>
Fortunately, the US legal system has been built in a way that protects the rights of all stakeholders to any industrial development. Those stakeholders include local citizens, their businesses, their local infrastructure, their archeological sites, and their government entities – those are givens. But US society has seen fit over the decades to extend similar protections to animals, plants, the water, and the air as well.<br/>
<br/>
Whenever we hear developers of energy or any other industrial projects complain of lengthy and complex permitting processes with which they must comply, we must remember that almost all the hurdles they must overcome to obtain their permits relate to regulations designed to protect these stakeholder rights. In the US, those regulations relate to major environmental statutes like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others, like the Antiquities Act. The term “streamlining permitting” is in fact code for scaling back on those stakeholder protections.<br/>
<br/>
This is the clear trade-off with which the US and other western democracies must grapple if they are to achieve their climate goals. We must recognize that essentially every “solution” that has been advanced by the climate alarmist community and the globalist elites pushing their agenda requires the implementation of authoritarian policies designed to scale back stakeholder rights, pick winners and losers in the marketplace, and force reluctant consumers to pay the price.<br/>
<br/>
These kinds of forced solutions are in fact incompatible with the maintenance of a free society that protects the rights of all stakeholders. That reality is the central conundrum of this forced, heavily subsidized energy transition – which is not, in fact, a transition at all – and it is the reason why so many local governments are rejecting these proposed industrial sites. The climate alarmists understand this, which is why their rhetoric has grown more shrill and heated over time.<br/>
<br/>
In democracies, we decide major issues like this through elections. So long as we ensure those elections are conducted freely and fairly, it seems unlikely voters will be willing to surrender their rights in favor of achieving nebulous climate goals.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://news.yahoo.com/news/american-revolt-against-green-energy-162426016.html">https://news.yahoo.com/news/american-revolt-against-green-energy-162426016.html</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Electric cars release more toxic emissions than petrol-powered vehicles and are worse for the environment</b><br/>
<br/>
Electric vehicles may release more pollution than petrol-powered vehicles, according to a report that has recently resurfaced.<br/>
<br/>
The study, which was published in 2022 but has begun circulating again after being cited in a WSJ op-ed, found that brakes and tyres release 1,850 times more particulate matter compared to modern exhaust pipes which have filters that reduce emissions.<br/>
<br/>
It found that EVs are 30 percent heavier on average than petrol-powered vehicles, which causes the brakes and tyre treads to wear out faster than standard cars and releases tiny, often toxic particles into the atmosphere.<br/>
<br/>
Hesham Rakha, a professor at Virginia Tech told Dailymail.com that the study is only 'partially correct' because even though EVs are heavier, their tyres will emit more microplastics into the air, but this could also be true for sedans versus SUVs.<br/>
<br/>
Rakha said it is very challenging to determine the difference between the amount of microplastics emitted from EV tyre treads and petrol-powered vehicles because you have to separate the microplastics that are already in the air from other sources with what's coming off the tyres.<br/>
<br/>
Rakha and his team at Virginia Tech are in the process of conducting field tests to determine how much microplastics are emitting from EV and petrol cars by using traffic simulators that will mimic an urban setting.<br/>
<br/>
He added that he doesn't expect there to be a major difference between the EV and petrol-powered vehicles, saying that they haven't measured it yet, but expect the difference to be about 20 percent.<br/>
<br/>
This doesn't mean that people should gravitate away from electric cars because they 'are more efficient depending zero emission,' Rakha said, but added the caveat that 'it also generates a lot of CO2 when charging your vehicle.'<br/>
<br/>
EV batteries weigh about 453kg, and can result in tire emissions that are nearly 400 times more than exhaust pipe emissions.<br/>
<br/>
Particle pollution can increase health problems including heart disease, asthma, lung disease and in extreme cases, can lead to hospitalisation, cancer, and premature death.<br/>
<br/>
New petrol-powered cars are created to be 'cleaner,' by updating the trims of their internal combustion engines to include particulate filters that reduce emissions.<br/>
<br/>
The EVs increased weight due to their lithium-ion batteries cause the tyre treads to wear faster, ultimately producing more emissions.<br/>
<br/>
The study, conducted by the firm Emissions Analytics, said the main difference between exhaust pipe and tyre emissions is that the majority of particulate emissions released from the tyre go directly into the soil and water, while exhaust negatively affects the air quality.<br/>
<br/>
The effects of tire composition come down to the materials the tyre is made from, the study reported.<br/>
<br/>
Light-duty tyres are typically made from synthetic rubber which is developed using crude oil natural rubber adds fillers and additives, some of which are recognised carcinogens.<br/>
<br/>
Emissions Analytics tested the tire wear on both EV and gas-powered vehicles after driving them at least 1,600km.<br/>
<br/>
The researchers used a sampling system to collect particles immediately behind each tire and then measured the size of the particles emitted from the tread.<br/>
<br/>
It found that the greater the vehicle's mass and weight, the more rapidly the tyre particulate emissions would be released due to the increased torque between the tires and the road.<br/>
<br/>
A separate 2020 report by the Emissions Analytics firm said that tyres are likely to be a major concern in the coming years as ‘consumers switch to bigger and heavier cars.’<br/>
<br/>
‘Research shows they contribute to microplastic marine pollution, as well as air pollution from finer particles,’ the report continued.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13156803/Electric-cars-release-toxic-emissions-petrol-powered-vehicles-worse-environment.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13156803/Electric-cars-release-toxic-emissions-petrol-powered-vehicles-worse-environment.html</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> A reality check for climate alarmists: net zero is impossible</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> A stable energy supply sourced from wind and sunshine was obviously impossible from the beginning but the Left have always had big problems with the obvious</i><br/>
<br/>
One of Australia’s richest mining magnates, Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest, says you can already feel climate change, it has caused “deaths, devastation and hardship” all around the world already, Australia has “run out of time” and he knows how to fix it.<br/>
<br/>
Forrest’s prescription promises “economic growth over generations” along with “full employment” and a “pristine environment” with “cheap energy being produced everywhere in our country”. Too easy; the only resource lacking, he says, is the “courage to get on with it”.<br/>
<br/>
To deliver this energy and environmental nirvana he wants the coal, oil and gas industries to be “taxed out of existence”. Strangely, he does not include his own iron ore industry, which relies on fossil fuels for extraction, transport and blast-furnacing into iron and steel.<br/>
<br/>
This simplistic combination of rampant alarmism and magic pudding economics is not rare. It is omnipresent in the rantings of Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg, Greens leader Adam Bandt, Extinction Rebellion and the teals, but it is unusual coming from a titan of industry, albeit one in receipt of substantial government subsidies here and abroad for “green hydrogen” projects.<br/>
<br/>
We were warned by the weather bureau and climate alarmists last spring that this summer would be extraordinarily hot and dry. Given that all turned out to be a damp squib, they are turning their forecasts a little further afield with the Nine Entertainment newspapers (in cahoots with the Climate Council) offering an online tool this week to show us how many days over 35C we can expect in our suburbs in 2050 and 2090.<br/>
<br/>
It is as if these people have become so bored by the lack of public debate about their Chicken Little claims that they have opted for self-parody to amuse themselves. Not only do they seek to raise the fear of Gaia over these long-range predictions, they implore us to “take action” to make sure our particular postcode can keep the mercury below 35C for a day or two more in the summer of 2090.<br/>
<br/>
The Greens voters of Penrith and Broadmeadows might be pretty cheesed off in 2090 when it still turns out that it’s only those affluent coastal postcodes that get the sea breeze. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald might encounter some sweaty subscribers with buyer’s remorse in the autumn of 2091.<br/>
<br/>
In this climate of fearmongering and idiocy we need more reality checks. For starters we might ease the sense of crisis by levelling with the public that the prime reason many heat records have been broken in Australia in recent decades is because the Bureau of Meteorology revised most of its early temperature records downwards and because it ignores any records before 1910, thereby eradicating from calculations known hot periods such as the Federation drought. (It argues this was scientifically valid and necessary, but the fact it has been done is worth sharing more widely, for context if nothing else.)<br/>
<br/>
Still, temperatures will do what they will, and global emissions are still rising. It is a scientific fact that whatever Australia does on emissions cannot affect global climate, and natural climate variations can easily override any human interventions, good or bad. From the upper echelons of state and federal governments we are fed two strands of argument that are seldom challenged. The first is the alarmism and the other tells us renewables are the only way to deliver the emissions cuts required.<br/>
<br/>
“So, while moving towards a renewable grid is a massive transformation,” Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen says, “it is necessary for our economy, for our energy security and for the climate. Stop the delay, distraction, deception and denial. Get with the program.”<br/>
<br/>
Clearly we need to address the practical reality of moving to net zero, and the pretence that this can be done easily without a heavy economic cost. We can start with the International Energy Agency, which works closely with the UN and is all on board with the net zero zeitgeist. In its Global Energy Transitions Stocktake it recognises that “half the emission reductions needed to reach net zero come from technologies not yet on the market”. Got that? We cannot ever get to net zero unless we develop technologies that are “under development” or yet to be invented.<br/>
<br/>
Czech-Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil is the author of 40 books mainly focused on outlining complex realities and dilemmas. His 2022 book How the World Really Works contains bad news for those climate activists who just want to “do something” about climate change and believe the solution is easy – just decarbonise.<br/>
<br/>
“The real wrench in the works,” warns Smil, is that “we are a fossil-fuelled civilisation whose technical and scientific advances, quality of life and prosperity rest on the combustion of huge quantities of fossil carbon, and we cannot simply walk away from this critical determinant of our fortunes in a few decades, never mind years.”<br/>
<br/>
He is not a complete pessimist, just anchored in the reality: “Complete decarbonisation of the global economy by 2050 is now conceivable only at the cost of unthinkable economic retreat, or as a result of extraordinarily rapid transformations relying on near miraculous technical advances.”<br/>
<br/>
This is because we rely on fossil fuels not just to generate most of our electricity but to fuel our road, rail, air and sea transport, heat homes, power industry, mine minerals, create chemical and plastic products, manufacture fertilisers and grow food. While wealthy countries such as ours can make some expensive changes to improve efficiency and reduce emissions, more than half of the world’s population is still racing to get the energy it needs, massively expanding global energy demand.<br/>
<br/>
“Annual global demand for fossil carbon is now just above 10 billion tons a year,” writes Smil, “a mass nearly five times more than the recent annual harvest of all staple grains feeding humanity, and more than twice the total mass of water drunk annually by the world’s nearly eight billion inhabitants – and it should be obvious that displacing and replacing such a mass is not something best handled by government targets for years ending in zero or five.”<br/>
<br/>
Other practical realities deepen the dilemma. The challenges for renewables relate largely to scale and efficiency. Smil again: “Large nuclear reactors are the most reliable producers of electricity, some of them now generate it 90-95 per cent of the time, compared to about 45 per cent for the best offshore wind turbines and 25 per cent for photovoltaic cells in even the sunniest of climates – while Germany’s solar panels produce electricity only about 12 per cent of the time.”<br/>
<br/>
Other researchers have tried to quantify the mineral resources needed to manufacture enough turbines, solar panels, batteries and electric engines to get to net zero.<br/>
<br/>
In his paper Mining for Net Zero: The Impossible Task, Alan G. Jones finds we will have to dramatically increase the mining effort, which is already higher than at any time in history.<br/>
<br/>
“For example,” Jones writes, “one estimate is that there needs to be as much copper mined over the next 20-25 years as has been mined to date.”<br/>
<br/>
Another geoscientist who has been based in Finland and Australia, Simon Michaux, has warned about the scale of replacing fossil fuel energy with renewables and hydrogen. “So, we are discussing bringing in a power system significantly larger than the one we have now,” Michaux reminds us, “with power systems that are not as effective and more expensive.”<br/>
<br/>
Michaux has run detailed calculations on all the key resources such as lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt required globally, and the amount we are capable of extracting. The results are sobering.<br/>
<br/>
“We don’t have enough mining production or mineral reserves to manufacture the first generation of renewable technology,” he finds.<br/>
<br/>
But it is even worse than that because, as he points out, all the kit, from wind turbines to solar panels, from electric engines to batteries, will have to be replaced within 10 to 25 years, and again and again.<br/>
<br/>
Chris Greig, a senior research scientist from Princeton University in the US, has costed the transition for Net Zero Australia. “Such is the level of investment required to build out new-generation storage facilities such as batteries and pumped-hydro, and transmission lines, that up to $1.5 trillion will need to be deployed by 2030 to put Australia on track to meet its 2050 commitments,” declares the study he co-authored. That is an amount proximate to the size of our entire GDP to be invested over just the next six years. Good luck.<br/>
<br/>
And if the resources, innovation and funding required do not make this all fanciful enough, try considering the land, approvals and practicality of installing it. Bowen has boasted about needing to install 22,000 500-watt solar panels every day for eight years, as well as more than one 7-megawatt wind turbine every day connected by at least 10,000km of new transmission lines across the same period.<br/>
<br/>
Most of this will be in regional and coastal communities that do not want them. And all of it, spread diffusely across the country, will be vulnerable to disruption by storms and bushfires.<br/>
<br/>
Yet they seriously try to argue that nuclear power, sited compactly on existing industrial/generation sites, requiring no additional transmission lines, will be too slow and expensive.<br/>
<br/>
It is time to take the ideology and fantasy out of energy policy and address the reality.<br/>
<br/>
The climate and renewables zealots are in denial.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-reality-check-for-climate-alarmists-net-zero-is-impossible/news-story/9bc08179967d266774c53bfed7876a16">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-reality-check-for-climate-alarmists-net-zero-is-impossible/news-story/9bc08179967d266774c53bfed7876a16</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-58350774645046104442024-03-04T17:34:00.003+13:002024-03-04T17:34:38.411+13:00<br>
<b> Heads Up Media – Texas Wildfires Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change</b><br/>
<br/>
A few days ago, a wildfire started in north Texas and grew quickly, driven by strong southwesterly winds. Named the Smokehouse Creek Fire, it has burned more than 1.1 million acres and is now the largest wildfire in Texas history. The mainstream media has been quick to blame climate change for the fire, with headlines like this one from NBC News: Wildfires ravage Texas amidst climate change crisis, or this one from ABC13 in Houston: How climate change is increasing wildfire risks across Texas. These stories are false; multiple lines of real-world data refute any connection between these fires and climate change.<br/>
<br/>
NBC News claims:<br/>
<br/>
The Texas Panhandle is no stranger to face-blasting winds nor roller-coaster dips in temperature. But the fires would not have had the same chance to take off if not for unseasonably warm temperatures and dry conditions made more likely by climate change.<br/>
<br/>
ABC13 claims:<br/>
<br/>
Additionally, climate change could increase Texan’s risks for wildfires over the next 30 years. ABC13 Meteorologist Elyse Smith has previously covered this topic through ABC’s Weathering Tomorrow initiative, which uses data from our partners at the First Street Foundation. It shows how wildfire risk, as well as heat, flood, and wind risks, will be impacted by climate change through the year 2050.<br/>
<br/>
If either of these news outlets had bothered to do a ‘fact check,’ they would find their claims are unsupported by real world data.<br/>
<br/>
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Texas show that the state has experienced a declining trend in number of very hot days and a slight increase in precipitation<br/>
<br/>
With fewer hot days and increased precipitation recorded in the long-term climate records, the claim that Texas is more susceptible to wildfires now that in the past because of climate change is clearly false.<br/>
<br/>
Both media outlets suggested that the area where the fires are is drier than normal. This too is false.<br/>
<br/>
According to the US drought monitor, the area now beset by the wildfire is not abnormally dry and certainly not experiencing drought conditions:<br/>
<br/>
Nor is the adjacent region of Oklahoma caught up in the wildfire suffering under abnormally dry or drought conditions.<br/>
<br/>
According to Climate at a Glance: U.S. Wildfires:<br/>
<br/>
Wildfires, especially in arid parts of the United States, have always been a natural part of the environment, and they likely always will. Global warming did not create wildfires. In fact, wildfires have become less frequent and less severe in recent decades. One of the key contributing factors has been that the United States has experienced fewer droughts in recent decades than in periods throughout the twentieth century.<br/>
<br/>
According to the National Park Service, wildfires in Texas have always been a part of the state’s history. However recently invasive species now cover much of the region. According to the Texas A&M Forest Service:<br/>
<br/>
Invasive species cause many negative impacts to the Texas landscape, from the displacement of native trees to potentially wiping out entire species.<br/>
<br/>
Much of the Texas panhandle region is overgrown with cedar, acacia and invasive mesquite trees which use up a lot of groundwater. Previously, natural fires in the region helped control the spread of this problem, but with modern fire suppression, fuel loads have increased.<br/>
<br/>
Even the most recent International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of global climate agrees. On Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs) the table in Figure 5 shows the incidence of “Fire weather” has not emerged from climate change:<br/>
<br/>
Finally, recent satellite data show no correlation between wildfire acreage burned and carbon dioxide levels. In fact, global wildfire area burned declined substantially between 2000 to 2018, even as carbon dioxide levels increased. If climate change was driving an increase in wildfires you would see it in the global data, but it shows just the opposite.<br/>
<br/>
Actual data and various lines of hard evidence show that there is no connection between climate change and the wildfires now ravaging parts of north Texas and Oklahoma, or anywhere else for that matter. Sadly, once again the media is pushing the “climate catastrophe,” narrative in which every extreme weather event or natural disaster is caused by climate change, despite the clear evidence that this is false. In this case, rather than doing investigative due diligence, neither NBC nor ABC bothered to check facts before publishing these scare stories, which suggests that their reporters and editors are either lazy, incompetent, blinded by political ideology, or all three.<br/>
<br/>
<i> See original for graphics</i><br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climaterealism.com/2024/03/heads-up-media-texas-wildfires-have-nothing-to-do-with-climate-change/">https://climaterealism.com/2024/03/heads-up-media-texas-wildfires-have-nothing-to-do-with-climate-change/</a>
</p>
*******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Net-zero targets have hamstrung British prosperity</b><br/>
<br/>
Britain’s ‘net-zero economy’ is booming, creating more better-paid jobs than any other sector, but it is all being put at risk by the government’s reversal on policies on electric vehicles and heat pumps.<br/>
<br/>
That, at any rate, is what the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) wants us to believe. In a report this week, these groups claim that the net-zero target has spawned an industry worth £74 billion, up 9 per cent in just a year. It has created 765,000 jobs which are 1.6 times as productive as the average UK job and which offer average wages of £44,600, compared with £35,400 for the rest of the economy. Yet, ‘at a time when the US and EU are ramping up investment and tax breaks in the pursuit of clean industries setting up shop on their soil, the UK has been chopping and changing’, with ‘mixed signals, policy U-turns and contradictory political rhetoric’ discouraging investment. In other words, never mind about such trifles as the 2,500 jobs to be lost at Port Talbot as the blast furnaces are closed, taking with them Britain’s remaining capacity for primary steel-making – there are better-paid green jobs out there for anyone who wants them.<br/>
<br/>
To claim that net zero has sparked an industrial boom in Britain, you have to be pretty inventive with the figures<br/>
<br/>
This analysis falls at the first hurdle. The EU is doing pretty much the same as Britain in retreating from net-zero targets when they collide head-on with reality. Just as Rishi Sunak’s government put back the proposed ban on new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, the EU – which never planned to ban them until 2035 in the first place – has revised its rules so that internal combustion engines will still be allowed after 2035 as long as they are capable of running on synthetic fuel. The German government, like Britain’s, was forced to water down proposals to ban gas boilers when it became clear how much it was going to cost households. As for the US, while Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act has made subsidies available for green energy projects, it has never imposed such tight targets for decarbonising the economy as Britain has. Indeed, America has more than doubled oil and gas output in the past 16 years as it sought energy security.<br/>
<br/>
Moreover, the CBI’s claims are at odds with what is really happening to jobs in renewable energy in Britain and Europe. The Danish wind company Orsted – formerly Denmark’s national oil and gas producer – cut 800 jobs and suspended its dividend last month after losing £2.5 billion in the third quarter of 2023. In the past six months eight European solar companies have either gone bust or reported financial difficulties as China increasingly corners the market for clean energy. According to the Inter-national Renewable Energy Agency, 5.55 million of the world’s 13.7 million jobs in renewable energy are in China, and only 1.8 million in Europe. Why China? Because energy is a lot cheaper there, for one thing. But China certainly isn’t using clean energy to manufacture Europe’s wind turbines and solar panels – 60 per cent of the country’s electricity is still generated by burning coal.<br/>
<br/>
Investment and jobs are welcome in clean energy, just as in any industry. However, there is little joy in celebrating the creation of ‘net-zero jobs’ if, overall, the target to achieve net zero is costing you many more jobs while you lose your remaining industrial base due to high energy costs and excessive regulation imposed by net-zero targets. Ineos owner Jim Ratcliffe warned last week that Europe will lose almost all of its remaining chemicals industry over the next 20 years, in a speech that was woefully under-reported by a media more interested in his plans for Manchester United Football Club. One of the reasons, Ratcliffe said, was that in Britain his company is paying five times as much for its gas and four times as much for electricity as it does in the US. At the moment, Ineos in Europe is paying £130 million a year in carbon taxes, but by 2030 that will rise to £1.7 billion. The German industrials giant BASF has already announced that it is to shrink European operations while investing £8 billion in a new plant in China, as well as investments in the US.<br/>
<br/>
To claim that net zero has sparked an industrial boom in Britain, you have to be pretty inventive with the figures. The CBI’s report doesn’t identify all the 23,750 businesses it claims as part of the net-zero economy, but the five it does name include a company that makes electrical transformers– which are used throughout the electricity industry, regardless of how electricity is being generated – and the waste company Veolia. The latter has been included, it says, because it manages landfill sites, which involves separating organic waste and collecting methane gas from waste tips. Yet landfill sites operators have been collecting methane for decades, long before net zero.<br/>
<br/>
Investing in clean technologies is a good idea. Many of them will fail but some will go on to become great generators of wealth. But as China proves, you don’t need a legally binding net-zero target to make money selling the technology to others. As the US is showing, what really powers industrial growth is cheap energy. That is where Britain, like Europe, is falling down. If we are losing out on investment and job creation, that has less to do with the relaxation of one or two net-zero targets. Britain, after all, leads the world purely in terms of the reduction in territorial carbon emissions, which have halved since 1990. It has rather more to do with the expense and bureaucracy being imposed on businesses in a desperate attempt to reach overly demanding net-zero targets.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/net-zero-targets-have-hamstrung-british-prosperity/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/net-zero-targets-have-hamstrung-british-prosperity/</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> More Fabricated Nonsense About The ‘Hottest Evah’</b><br/>
<br/>
Journalists are meant to be skeptical. But not on trendy causes, at least not in recent times<br/>
<br/>
Thus a piece in The Daily Digest starts out “It seems impossible but some people still deny climate change science” and continues, beneath a caricature of Donald Trump:<br/>
<br/>
“We all know somebody who thinks this ‘climate change stuff’ is a bunch of hogwash. Forty years ago, it was easier to understand, but as of late, it is pretty mind-blowing that some people can have this level of cognitive dissonance.”<br/>
<br/>
But does the journalist (who we doubt was even around 40 years ago) really know such a person?<br/>
<br/>
Or are they only talking to one another, and failing to examine assumptions or check facts because it’s, like, mind-blowing that anyone could disagree with us, man? But at a certain point even journalists sometimes check the details, and that’s when it really gets mind-blowing.<br/>
<br/>
MSN ran the headline “US weather: Heat explosion to smash America in freak 20C winter heatwave” and said:<br/>
<br/>
“The US is about to roast in a freak winter heatwave as a plume of sweltering air surges up from the tropics.”<br/>
<br/>
Still, it’s a kind of progress that they then noted it’s a freak event, not a trend, and the heat is coming from the tropics not from your SUV.<br/>
<br/>
And they also noted how cold weather elsewhere was breaking records in Alaska, even thickening fuel oil so furnaces and stoves stopped working, while NBC took notice of a snow storm that dumped two feet of snow on California.<br/>
<br/>
These days we count it lucky when a story says “Norway hit by hurricane-force winds: Is climate change making Europe’s extreme storms worse?” and answers by saying “Unsurprisingly, many across the UK, Ireland, Norway, Sweden and other storm-hit European countries this winter will be wondering whether climate change is partly to blame” then admits it’s not.<br/>
<br/>
As in:<br/>
<br/>
“This is the furthest through the list we have ever been at this stage,” a Met Office weather service spokesperson confirmed to Euronews Green last week.<br/>
<br/>
But since storms only started being named in 2015, it’s not the best way of measuring climate change impacts.<br/>
<br/>
‘It’s quite a complex issue and not quite as simple as [the] increasing frequency of heatwaves in the UK as a result of human-induced climate change,’ they added.”<br/>
<br/>
Even though ‘human-induced climate change’ is not increasing the frequency of heat waves, nor has the UK seen an increase.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile in The Atlantic an article that started “California’s Climate Has Come Unmoored / The weather of catastrophe is here” soon went on to detail how “unmoored” California’s weather has always been, from Joan Didion’s 1968 “Los Angeles weather is the weather of catastrophe, of apocalypse” to “The damage from the 1862 flood was so bad that it bankrupted the state.”<br/>
<br/>
But it then concludes that, as everybody knows, everything has changed:<br/>
<br/>
“Meteorologists have described it [the 1862 flood] as a once-in-30,000-years disaster, but there is reason to believe that another one could come much sooner, because the planet is warming, and warmer air holds more moisture.”<br/>
<br/>
Again, the narrative has run away from the facts. On purpose, it seems.<br/>
<br/>
The flood that might be coming is more real, far more real, than the one that actually did come.<br/>
<br/>
The British Red Cross advises that:<br/>
<br/>
“In the coming decades, it is predicted periods of hot weather and heatwaves will be longer and more extreme.”<br/>
<br/>
Note the passive voice, which makes it hard to check who made the prediction. But we tried anyway, and found instead that according to the official British Met Office the UK in 2023, the “Hottest year ever”TM, the hottest day came in September and the heatwave in question “would not have been particularly unusual” during the summer, adding:<br/>
<br/>
“The seven consecutive days with temperatures exceeding 30°C in the UK was the longest such spell on record with the previous longest runs five days in the Septembers of 1929 and 1911.”<br/>
<br/>
Given the urban heat island effect it is fair to say that in fact a stretch of hot weather in September 2023 was nothing out of the ordinary, having happened a century ago, possibly more frequently.<br/>
<br/>
Especially since, the Met adds of the September peak of 33.5°C at Faversham in Kent, on the 10th, that “While this is a notably high value it was not record-breaking, falling well short of the UK September record of 35.6°C set at Bawtry (South Yorkshire) on 2 September 1906.”<br/>
<br/>
Yes, 1906.<br/>
<br/>
What’s more, the hottest day of the year rarely comes so late, having “only occurred in September on four previous occasions in 2016, 1954, 1949 and 1919.”<br/>
<br/>
So it’s episodic, cyclical and typical.<br/>
<br/>
Except that in this hottest year ever, Britain didn’t break 30C in August, didn’t break 31C in July, and didn’t break 33C in June.<br/>
<br/>
The tendency nowadays is to rely on theory not evidence. For instance in the New York Times “Climate Forward”, Manuela Andreoni writes of storms and flooding on the American east coast and south to Louisiana that:<br/>
<br/>
“So far this week, Californians have not seen the kinds of weather-generated disasters that struck last winter, with flooding in Ventura County in December and in San Diego in January, my colleague Jill Cowan reports.<br/>
<br/>
Storms are part of the natural cycle that replenishes the water supplies that several states will rely on during the drier months to come, Judson Jones, The Times’s meteorologist, told me.<br/>
<br/>
‘The problem comes when there’s too much at one time,’ he said. Climate change makes that a lot more likely. Warmer air holds more moisture, which means storms in many parts of the world are getting wetter and more intense, as my colleague Ray Zhong explained during deluges last year.<br/>
<br/>
Coastal areas are especially vulnerable to climate change, not just because of storms and floods, but from rising seas and erosion.”<br/>
<br/>
OK, more likely, you say. Though the amount of extra moisture isn’t specified and would, you’d think, at least reduce drought.<br/>
<br/>
But the real question is whether it’s actually making it more common. Climate is a complex phenomenon even in a world where many things are more complex than some people seem to think.<br/>
<br/>
There are a lot of hypothetical mechanisms that could operate and might be worth testing if the result they could produce actually seems to have arrived.<br/>
<br/>
But is the U.S. having more flooding?<br/>
<br/>
As we’ve noted, California has been notorious for cycles of searing drought and inundating floods since anyone started keeping track.<br/>
<br/>
As for, say, Louisiana, the U.S. National Weather Service (yes, we have Google on our computers, apparently unlike many journalists) says “On this page you learn what types of flooding are typical in Louisiana”.<br/>
<br/>
Types, you’ll notice. Not just one. And it lists “Significant Louisiana Floods in 2005, 1927, 1965, 2011 and 1995.<br/>
<br/>
The 1927 event, aka the “Great Mississippi Flood of 1927”, was “the most destructive river flood in the history of the United States”.<br/>
<br/>
A century ago. Before there was climate.<br/>
<br/>
Still, everybody knows that if something bad happens now, or something unusual, it’s proof that climate is way more climatic than it was before it was.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/more-fabricated-nonsense-about-the-hottest-evah/">https://principia-scientific.com/more-fabricated-nonsense-about-the-hottest-evah/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Why new green jobs are at risk if old industries die</b><br/>
<br/>
All the post-pandemic talk of resurrecting Australia’s manufacturing sector and securing local supply chains seems like a lifetime away, amid talk that yet another manufacturer could go quietly into the night this year.<br/>
<br/>
The fate of Qenos’s Melbourne and Sydney manufacturing plants is not yet set in stone, and the fact that the company – owned by China National Chemical – has recently spent money rebuilding a cooling tower at its Botany Bay plastics plant offers hope not all of its Australian facilities will be closed.<br/>
<br/>
But if one or both of the plants are shuttered, they will join a raft of major plant closures since all the hullabaloo about securing domestic supply chains during the pandemic – including Incitec Pivot’s Gibson Island fertiliser plant in Brisbane, Exxon’s oil refinery in Melbourne’s Altona, a similar facility owned by BP in Kwinana, south of Perth, and Alcoa’s alumina refinery also in Kwinana. Similar threats hang over BHP’s nickel smelter in Kalgoorlie and refinery in Kwinana.<br/>
<br/>
All of these plants are old, sub-scale by global standards, and suffer – compared to international competitors – from higher labour, gas and energy costs, and from rising pressure to comply with environmental standards.<br/>
<br/>
But the threat to Qenos’s local facilities is also a timely reminder of the knock-on effects of the closure of manufacturing plants.<br/>
<br/>
Tight gas markets have played a part in Qenos’s troubles – its gas bills reportedly doubled in 2023. But the major cause of its most recent problems was the shuttering in 2021 of Exxon’s Altona refinery, which supplied the LPG used as a feedstock for Qenos’s plastics production lines.<br/>
<br/>
That happened under the previous Morrison government – and amid plenty of warnings about the downstream effects of its closure, including from Qenos, which was forced to close half the lines of its own production facility in the wake of the exit of the Exxon plant.<br/>
<br/>
Any decision by BHP to close its Kalgoorlie nickel smelter will also ripple through the broader WA mining industry. The smelter supplies sulphuric acid, a by-product of its operations, to other parts of the state’s mining industry – and, in particular, to Lynas’s new cracking and leaching plant outside of Kalgoorlie.<br/>
<br/>
As Lynas boss Amanda Lacaze said, the manufacturing and processing industry in Australia is an ecosystem, not a collection of unrelated operations.<br/>
<br/>
And perhaps more important is the loss of the technical know-how that comes with the closure of these type of facilities.<br/>
<br/>
Much is made of the loss of blue-collar jobs in manufacturing. But workers in these types of plants need substantial technical skills to keep these plants open, along with the expertise of chemists and a host of other professionals. And, despite the hype around “green jobs” in energy, hydrogen, lithium and rare earths, it is difficult to build that kind of expertise from scratch.<br/>
<br/>
Companies that rely on gas for power and as an input are caught between the pressure to ditch fossil fuel extraction and the political and commercial cost of requiring gas producers to reserve more production for the domestic market.<br/>
<br/>
Those pressures may mean that Australia is destined to shed the remaining industries that are dependent on petrochemical products as a feedstock.<br/>
<br/>
Saving Australia’s remaining manufacturing and chemicals industries – and building new ones – will take actual policy designed to attract investment, backed by long-term support from successive governments of both political persuasions.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/talk-of-qenos-closure-highlights-the-risk-of-letting-manufacturing-industries-quietly-die/news-story/76fc21cd8481ff32e73998965e6d9674">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/talk-of-qenos-closure-highlights-the-risk-of-letting-manufacturing-industries-quietly-die/news-story/76fc21cd8481ff32e73998965e6d9674</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-72965153395180994652024-02-29T19:25:00.002+13:002024-02-29T19:25:26.162+13:00<br><b> Green Billionaires Press Hollywood to Promote Armageddon Climate Messages in Movies</b><br/>
<br/>
Green billionaires are pouring money into discreet campaigns to persuade Hollywood writers to catastrophise the climate in future film and television scripts. One of their main vehicles is Good Energy, which tells writers that showing anger, depression, grief or other emotion in relation to the climate crisis, “can only make characters more relatable”. Los Angeles-based Good Energy is funded by numerous billionaire foundations including Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Sierra Club and the Climate Emergency Fund; the latter operation is part-funded by Aileen Getty and is one of the paymasters of the Just Stop Oil pests.<br/>
<br/>
Good Energy aims to weave climate alarm into all types of film-making, “especially” if it is not about climate. With the support of Bloomberg, it recently published ‘Good Energy – A Playbook for Screenwriting in the Age of Climate Change’. It claims the Playbook is “now the industry’s go-to guide to incorporating climate into any storyline or genre”. As with almost all green campaigning groups, Good Energy would not exist without the support of billionaire funding. These operations seek a supra-national collectivist Net Zero solution to a claimed climate emergency. Good Energy acknowledges it would not exist without this funding, adding, “as collaborators and champions, each has provided a unique contribution for which we are endlessly grateful”.<br/>
<br/>
Announcing the launch of the ‘Playbook’, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the tax-efficient ‘charity’ channel for distributing the wealth of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, noted that “accurate and relatable storytelling about climate impacts and solutions can grow public support and motivate decision makers”. As regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will recall, billionaire foundations are grooming populations around the world by funding a variety of press, political and academic operations. Most significant non-profit bodies seeking to stop the use of hydrocarbons are funded from these sources. Few green campaigns arise from ‘grass roots’ these days. Put to the vote, for instance, the Green Party in the U.K. loses most of its election seat deposits.<br/>
<br/>
Since this is La La Land, Good Energy has some relevant advice for writers to normalise climate friendly actions. “Let’s reimagine what it looks like for a character to eat a plant-rich diet (Michelin Green Star restaurant, yes!), attend a protest or upcycle vintage clothes. And if your story requires a yacht, why not make it solar powered.” That last idea might appeal to super-yacht lover Leonardo DiCaprio, but private planes, the preferred method of transportation for many high-end Hollywood stars, might be a problem. Hypocrisy a problem with all this? Not according to the Playbook, which quotes climate activist Bill McKibben that “hypocrisy is the price of admission in this battle”. For plebs, gammons, fly-overs and deplorables, this of course translates as “you do what you are told and radically change your lives – we don’t give a flying flamingo”.<br/>
<br/>
Needles so say, a mere climate crisis is not enough for über-woke luvvies. It is not separate from other critical social issues like racism, sexism, economic injustice and war. The Playbook notes that “indigenous people are the first climate scientists, and indigenous people are leading us through this climate crisis”. Climate can be a “generative lens with which to view any subject or character”, the Playbook helpfully notes. For scripted entertainment, observes Good Energy, “the emotional truth is as important as the literal truth”.<br/>
<br/>
Good Energy was started in 2019 and its influence and services seem to be growing within the U.S. west coast film industry. Rolling Stone recently profiled the operation in an article titled ‘How Hollywood is Crafting A New Climate Change Narrative’. One of Good Energy’s “standout” projects last year was a collaboration with Scott Z Burns on the series Extrapolations for Apple TV+. This was said to be the first mainstream show centred entirely around climate. It starred Meryl Streep in eight interconnected stories over 33 years and was said to explore how the planet’s changing climate will affect family, work, faith and survival. Rolling Stone reports that the operation is “dedicated” to ensuring that within three years, 50% of contemporary TV and film acknowledges climate change.<br/>
<br/>
It is unsurprising that the power of film and TV to influence large audiences is being captured to promote a political message. During the 2021 COP 26 meeting in Glasgow, seven soap opera programmes in the U.K. including Coronation Street and Eastenders joined forces to highlight climate change. Most of the plot lines were clumsily inserted into existing storylines and in an era of declining audiences, the experiment does not appear to have been repeated.<br/>
<br/>
Nevertheless, elite billionaires are pulling out all the stops to insert climate Armageddon messaging into all forms of media. As I write, the BBC climate disinformation reporter Marco Silva is possibly learning how to improvise on the theme of a mango during his six-month sabbatical at the Oxford Climate Journalism Network. Past funders of the course include the European Climate Fund, which is supported by Extinction Rebellion funder Sir Christopher Hohn. Previous course attendees were told to pick a fruit such as a mango and discuss why it wasn’t as tasty as the year before due to the impact of climate change.<br/>
<br/>
Truly, La La Land meeting the make-believe world of BBC Verify.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/27/green-billionaires-press-hollywood-to-promote-armageddon-climate-messages-in-movies/">https://dailysceptic.org/2024/02/27/green-billionaires-press-hollywood-to-promote-armageddon-climate-messages-in-movies/</a>
</p>
*****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Apple kills its electric car after 10 years development</b><br/>
<br/>
Apple has canceled its plans to release an electric car with self-driving abilities, a secretive product that had been in the works for nearly a decade.<br/>
<br/>
The company told employees in an internal meeting on Tuesday that it had scrapped the project and that members of the group would be shifted to different roles, including in Apple’s artificial intelligence division, according to a person briefed on the discussion, who requested anonymity because the announcement was not public.<br/>
<br/>
As part of the restructuring, Kevin Lynch, an executive who had been involved in the car project, will report to John Giannandrea, the company’s head of artificial intelligence strategy, the person said.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/technology/apple-ends-electric-car-plan.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/27/technology/apple-ends-electric-car-plan.html</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Nearly half of young US voters won't pay more than $10 per month to fight climate change</b><br/>
<br/>
Nearly half of all young voters are not willing to pay more than $10 a month to fight climate change, despite Joe Biden claiming it's an 'existential threat' and making it the center of his re-election campaign.<br/>
<br/>
Less than half (45%) of the youngest crop of voters aged 18-34 would be willing to spend $10 or less per month to combat climate change, according to a recent survey by CRC Research for 85 Fund obtained exclusively by DailyMail.com.<br/>
<br/>
And one out of five (20%) in the same age bracket responded that they would not pay anything at all, according to the poll results.<br/>
<br/>
The results were similar among voters aged 25-34, which may be a wake-up call for President Joe Biden who continues to call climate change the most pressing threat facing America today.<br/>
<br/>
The findings are surprising considering younger voters site climate change as a top political issue and it is expected to be a key motivator heading into the 2024 elections.<br/>
<br/>
President Biden is putting climate change at the center of his re-election campaign - calling it the 'last existential threat' to a small group of donors at a California fundraiser last week.<br/>
<br/>
The Biden administration has worked to position itself as a champion of climate initiatives since day one - which generally appeals to younger voters.<br/>
<br/>
But the CRC Research poll shows that although younger voters may be passionate about the topic, they don't want to spend their own money to fix it.<br/>
<br/>
'Despite claims they are leading the charge on climate change, it turns out young people are actually just sheep in wolves clothing. They demand 'climate action', but demand someone else pay for it,' said Steve Milloy, a lawyer who briefly served at Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency.<br/>
<br/>
'They disguise their rank hypocrisy by posturing as 'climate activists.' Their refusal to put their money where their mouths are just underscores how unserious they are as citizens and voters,' he told DailyMail.com<br/>
<br/>
The CRC Research survey also found that 26 percent of 25 to 35 year old voters would not be willing to pay anything to combat climate change.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13127595/young-voters-climate-change-joe-biden-campaign.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13127595/young-voters-climate-change-joe-biden-campaign.html</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia: Victorian blackout has lessons</b><br/>
<br/>
When the lights went out last week for 500,000 Victorians, it wasn’t all bad. Most still had natural gas to turn to for cooking and some for hot water.<br/>
<br/>
But gas connections to new homes are banned in Victoria from 2024. Clearly, the great fortune of being part of the Lucky Country, blessed with dual energy supplies, was too great a first-world burden for the socialist-left Allan state government to handle.<br/>
<br/>
It means that for these new homes, the next time the lights go out, everything goes out.<br/>
<br/>
However, Victoria’s diabolic blackout might be the best double-edged sword the state’s future could have ordered.<br/>
<br/>
What happened last week may have been the first time many youngsters couldn’t charge their mobile phones, laptops, or other electronic gadgetry. Their lives and their lifelines also went flat.<br/>
<br/>
Until then, they had been removed from reality. Until then, it was someone else’s problem…<br/>
<br/>
Only now might they think about the importance of the essential service of electricity, and better still, the importance of cheap and reliable energy. One day they will have to pay the bills.<br/>
<br/>
And so it is that there may be more power in a flat phone battery than we think.<br/>
<br/>
Only now might the Net Zero zealots begin thinking about the real world, just as theirs shatters into texting and tweeting oblivion.<br/>
<br/>
The blackouts, with the promise of more to come, might just be the real-life lesson in understanding the old saying that you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.<br/>
<br/>
Schooled in Net Zero nonsense, the younger generations and their educators have largely applauded the direction of phasing out coal and pursuing a renewables nirvana.<br/>
<br/>
With eyes wide shut, they believe they are saving the world one poppycock plan at a time. They have skipped school and rallied for the cause. They have spent school hours making placards and writing letters to Ministers. Some have voted for the cause and more will follow.<br/>
<br/>
Little might they think that their increasingly battery-led lifestyle, pumped up by power, is not the life that their childhood counterparts in the Congo are living.<br/>
<br/>
Little might they think of the trees being pulled down in order to put up wind farms, or the interruption to whale migration at sea. Little might they think about what a romantic sunset could look like in years to come with industrial love on the horizon.<br/>
<br/>
Little might they think of the increasing plethora of coal-driven power, mining, and industrial operations elsewhere in the world, while Australia’s decision-makers pull the plug on ours.<br/>
<br/>
They are in the dark more than they might want to realise.<br/>
<br/>
For first-time power blackout sufferers, it won’t be the temporary death of their fridge or freezer worrying them. These days, most order-in a solution to their food problems or go to a local supermarket – backed up by diesel generators – to get a tub of ice cream on demand.<br/>
<br/>
No, it is only the absence of mobile phones, iPads, and the like that might make the younger generations understand what nobody else is telling them: reliable energy is really important.<br/>
<br/>
When they can recharge their phones – and their lives – they should google the following: nuclear energy, reliable energy, low-cost energy, and underground powerlines.<br/>
<br/>
Then they should google future job prospects in Australia.<br/>
<br/>
But it’s a bit hard to find the buttons in the dark.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/switching-on-reality">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/switching-on-reality</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-86884545944713496832024-02-28T15:33:00.002+13:002024-02-28T15:33:10.353+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Study: Air Pollution Increases Chances Of Breast Cancer By 45%, Prostate Cancer By Up To 28%</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> GIGO: Garbage in garbage out. This is just a meta analysis and the conclusions of such are only as good as the research reports surveyed. And air pollution studies are notorious for poor design leading to unsafe conclusions. I have critiqued many of them. The claims below can safely be regarded as not proven</i><br/>
<br/>
Long-term exposure to air pollution significantly increases the chances of developing various forms of cancer, a study has claimed.<br/>
<br/>
The findings of the study, which are yet to be published, have been accessed by the Daily Mail. It claims that air pollution can enhance the risk of getting breast cancer by 45 per cent and prostate cancer by between 20 and 28 per cent.<br/>
<br/>
The experts reviewed as many as 27 studies for their analysis, and found that the risk of dying from breast cancer also increases by 80 per cent among people who are exposed to air pollution as opposed to those who are not.<br/>
<br/>
The study said that long-term exposure to PM 2.5 can cause damage to the DNA, thereby, increasing the risk of getting cancer.<br/>
<br/>
PM 2.5 are tiny particles in the air that can enter the lungs and bloodstream. The PM 2.5 limit set by the World Health Organization is 5 μg/m3. However, most countries have failed to meet the WHO-prescribed limits.<br/>
<br/>
"PM 2.5 also disrupts glands throughout the body that produce hormones. This is a particular concern for breast and prostate cancer which can be driven by hormones," per an excerpt from the study.<br/>
<br/>
Air pollution was also found to be linked with a more aggressive disease and a poorer prognosis.<br/>
<br/>
What do other studies claim?<br/>
<br/>
The finding is mirrored by similar studies conducted over the years. A study published in the Lancet revealed that pollution caused approximately 9 million premature deaths worldwide in 2019. It included countries like China, the US, and many African and European countries.<br/>
<br/>
While another study claimed that air pollution caused by fossil fuels is killing 5 million people every year across the world.<br/>
<br/>
According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is responsible for about 7 million premature deaths every year. It adds that the disease burden due to air pollution is now estimated to be on par with other major global health risks.<br/>
<br/>
In some cases, extremely tiny air pollution particles can even cross the blood-brain barrier and damage the neurons directly. However, Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 has especially become a major cause of concern for authorities across the globe since it is so small that it can penetrate deep into the lungs.<br/>
<br/>
Air pollution can even affect your sleep. In 2017, a study was conducted in the United States to assess if it is linked with bad sleep. It was measured at one year and five years into the study. The participants also wore a wrist monitor to measure their movements during sleep.<br/>
<br/>
It looked at the effects of nitrogen dioxide and PM2.5 on sleep and found that people who were exposed to the most nitrogen dioxide in the past five years had a 60% increased risk of sleeping poorly. People exposed to the most PM 2.5 had an almost 50% increased risk of sleeping poorly.<br/>
<br/>
Various forms of cancer continue to claim millions of lives globally every year. It is the second leading cause of death globally, accounting for an estimated 9.6 million deaths in 2018.<br/>
<br/>
Between 2016 and 2018 in the UK, more than half of new cases of cancer were breast, prostate, lung or bowel cancer. Every two minutes someone in the UK is diagnosed with cancer, says the data provided by Cancer Research UK.<br/>
<br/>
However, breast cancer is the most common form of cancer, with around 47,000 people being diagnosed with the disease each year in England alone. Every year, around 56,000 women are diagnosed with the disease in the UK—around 150 women a day. Some 400 men in the UK are also diagnosed with breast cancer each year.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/study-air-pollution-increases-chances-breast-cancer-45-prostate-cancer-28-1723687">https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/study-air-pollution-increases-chances-breast-cancer-45-prostate-cancer-28-1723687</a>
</p>
*******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The Next Big Climate Scare: Counting Climate Change Deaths</b><br/>
<br/>
The next big climate scare is on the way. Advocates of measures to control the climate now propose that we begin counting deaths from climate change. They appear to believe that if people see a daily announcement of climate deaths, they will be more inclined to accept climate change policies. But it’s not even clear that the current gentle rise in global temperatures is causing more people to die.<br/>
<br/>
In December, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at COP28, the 28th United Nations Climate Conference, and mentioned climate-related deaths.<br/>
<br/>
“We are seeing and beginning to pay attention and to count and record the deaths that are related to climate,” she said. “And by far the biggest killer is extreme heat.”<br/>
<br/>
According to Ms. Clinton, Europe recorded 61,000 deaths from extreme heat in 2023, and she estimated that about 500,000 people died from heat across the world last year.<br/>
<br/>
Global temperatures have been gently rising for the last 300 years. Temperature metrics from NASA, NOAA, and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom estimate that Earth’s surface temperatures have risen a little more than one degree Celsius, or about two degrees Fahrenheit, over the last 140 years. But are these warmer temperatures harmful to people?<br/>
<br/>
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, most cases of influenza occur during December to March, the cold months in the United States. Influenza season in the southern hemisphere takes place during the cold months there, April through September. The peak months for COVID-19 infections tended to be the cold periods of the year. More people usually get sick during cold months than in warm months.<br/>
<br/>
More people also die during winter months than summer months, according to many peer-reviewed studies. For example, Dr. Matthew Falagas of the Alfa Institute of Medical Sciences and five other researchers studied seasonal mortality in 11 nations. The research showed that the average number of deaths peaked in the coldest months of the year in all of them.<br/>
<br/>
The late Dr. William Keating studied temperature-related deaths in six European countries for people aged 65 to 74. He concluded that deaths related to cold temperatures were nine times greater than those related to hot temperatures. Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, has pointed out that moderate global warming will likely reduce human mortality.<br/>
<br/>
Yet, on January 30, Dr. Colin J. Carlson of Georgetown University published a paper in Nature Medicine titled, “After millions of preventable deaths, climate change must be treated like a health emergency.” Carlson claims that climate change has caused about 166,000 deaths per year since the year 2000, or almost four million cumulative deaths.<br/>
<br/>
Carlson admits that most of these deaths have been due to malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, or malnutrition and diarrheal diseases in south Asia. But he goes on to claim that deaths due to natural disasters and even cardiovascular disease should also be attributed to climate change. If death from cardiovascular disease can be counted as a climate death, almost any death can be counted.<br/>
<br/>
The evidence doesn’t support these climate death claims. Malarial disease has plagued humanity throughout history, even when temperatures were colder than today. Dr. Paul Reiter, medical entomologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, points out that malaria was endemic to England 400 years ago during the colder climate of the Little Ice Age. The Soviet Union experienced an estimated 13 million cases of malaria during the 1920s, with 30,000 cases occurring in Archangel, a city located close to the frozen Arctic Circle.<br/>
<br/>
Malnutrition has been declining during the gentle warming of the last century. During the early 1900s, as many as 10 million people would die from famine each decade globally. Today, world famine deaths have been reduced to under 500,000 people per decade. About 10% of the world’s people are malnourished today, but this is down from about 25% in 1970.<br/>
<br/>
The number of deaths from natural disasters has also been falling during the warming over the last century. According to EM-DAT, the International Disaster Database, the deaths from disasters, including storms, famines, earthquakes, droughts, and floods, are down more than 90 percent over the last 100 years.<br/>
<br/>
With deaths from natural disasters and famine declining, and since fewer people die in warmer temperatures, the case for counting deaths from global warming is poor at best. But don’t underestimate the ability of climate alarmists to create fear by exaggerating the data.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://heartland.org/opinion/the-next-big-climate-scare-counting-climate-change-deaths/">https://heartland.org/opinion/the-next-big-climate-scare-counting-climate-change-deaths/</a>
</p>
*******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> No, BNN, Climate Change Will Not Leave 200 Million Africans Hungry by 2050</b><br/>
<br/>
An article published in BNN Breaking News by author Aqsa Younas Rana, titled “Climate Change to Plunge 200 Million Africans into Severe Hunger by 2050” asserts that climate change will result in widespread hunger, starvation, and agricultural revenue decline in Africa by 2050. The claims are unsubstantiated and contrary to real world data and trends on food production and revenue.<br/>
<br/>
The article opens describing a dystopian future in Africa:<br/>
<br/>
Imagine waking up one day to find that the very ground under your feet, once fertile and life-giving, has turned barren. The streams that meandered through your village, brimming with life, now barely whisper. The crops that danced in the wind, promising a bountiful harvest, stand withered. This isn’t a scene from a dystopian novel; it’s a looming reality for millions in Africa, as recent studies project a grim future where 200 million Africans could face severe hunger by 2050 due to the impacts of climate change.<br/>
<br/>
The story doesn’t reference any data or a single study as basis for its prediction of the future, rather it issues a one sentence warning, “[a]ccording to recent findings, agricultural productivity is expected to plummet, with crop revenue forecasted to decrease by 30%.<br/>
<br/>
There is no reference or citation given for the predicted 30 percent decline that Rana warns of, and the evidence that does exist actually indicates that during the recent modest warming, African crops and agricultural revenue have been regularly setting records.<br/>
<br/>
Climate Realism has pointed out across multiple articles that crop production and yields have improved dramatically in most places in Africa during the recent period of modest warming. One recent article by Linnea Lueken, Wrong, Washington Post, Warming Hasn’t Harmed African Crop Production, shows the extent to which climate change has benefitted African farmers:<br/>
<br/>
Data clearly show that the IMF’s claims about warming causing a decline in African crop production is patently and obviously false. Crop production in Africa in general, and Ethiopia in particular increased dramatically over recent decades, even as the planet has experienced a warming of more than 1℃. To reiterate the point, as warming has occurred, crop production and yields have increased, not decreased. Also, real world data and peer reviewed agronomy research provides no reason for believing these trends will change in the future, absent political interference in to use of fossil fuels to plant, fertilize, harvest, and deliver crops.<br/>
<br/>
This graph showing agricultural yields and production for primary cereal grains dramatically increased since 1990 at the same time that climate change was supposedly warming the continent of Africa:<br/>
<br/>
Rana mentions Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi as specifically threatened by crop losses, yet since 1990 foundational cereal crops and roots and tubers have increased dramatically in each of those countries. Since 1990 (1993 Ethiopia), the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reports that:<br/>
<br/>
In Ethiopia, despite civil strife, cereal crop production grew by approximately 496 percent, and root and tuber production increased by a little over 176 percent;<br/>
In Kenya, cereal crop production expanded by about 35 percent, and root and tuber production enlarged by almost 97 percent;<br/>
In Malawi, cereal crop production expanded by about nearly 185 percent, and root and tuber production grew by an astonishing 3,082 percent. (see the figure below)<br/>
<br/>
Africa in general has seen dramatic increases in agriculture, as demonstrated in numerous other Climate Realism posts, like, here, here, here, and here. Clearly, climate change is not causing a decline in African crop production or harming African farmers.<br/>
<br/>
Agriculture is the top source of income in most of the countries on the African continent with a few exceptions, and economic growth in Africa has been strong in recent decades. “Growth has been present throughout the continent, with over one-third of African countries posting 6% or higher growth rates, and another 40% growing between 4% and 6% per year, reports the World Bank.<br/>
<br/>
With these facts in evidence, the obvious question is: where is the damage to agriculture from climate change claimed by BNN?<br/>
<br/>
The BNN article misses the most obvious factor that has restrained crop production in recent years in some African countries, and caused dramatic fluctuations in others, namely political and civil unrest. According to the website African business, civil unrest is at a six-year high:<br/>
<br/>
A surge in civil unrest in Africa, fueled by political tensions, food insecurity, and government inefficiencies threatens stability, disrupts businesses, and stirs up social and economic crises in the region, new report finds.<br/>
<br/>
…<br/>
<br/>
36 African countries experienced a surge in risk between 2022-Q2 and 2023-Q2, marking the continent’s largest annual increase since the dataset’s inception in 2017, Verisk Maplecroft’s Civil Unrest Index reveals.<br/>
<br/>
The number of African countries now categorized as high or extreme risk for civil unrest has also risen to 37, a significant jump from 28 just six years ago.<br/>
<br/>
Civil unrest threatens farmers’ livelihoods. Even when farms and farmers themselves aren’t in a war zone, such unrest and political fighting often limits farmers access fuel, fertilizer, seeds, and makes it hard, if not impossible, to transport their crops to market. War, rebellion, and civil unrest presents a far more immediate and disruptive danger to agricultural production in Africa, than the gradual warming of the climate over the past 100 years, or any potential warming one might realistically expect by 2050.<br/>
<br/>
None of these facts stopped BNN from writing a poorly researched and unreferenced opinion piece claiming that climate change was the primary problem threatening agricultural production in Africa. Facts just get in the way when the media source wishes to push an alarming climate change narrative.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/no-bnn-climate-change-will-not-leave-200-million-africans-hungry-by-2050/">https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/no-bnn-climate-change-will-not-leave-200-million-africans-hungry-by-2050/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australian ex-PM eyes pumped hydro opportunity in the Upper Hunter</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Pumped hydro requires TWO dams. What does Mal think the dam-hating Greens will say about that? He's dreaming</i><br/>
<br/>
Acompany owned by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and his wife Lucy has won a tender to develop plans for two pumped hydro projects in the Upper Hunter.<br/>
<br/>
WaterNSW has awarded a development agreement to Upper Hunter Hydro (UHH) to explore the feasibility of the projects using WaterNSW land and reservoirs in the Hunter Valley.<br/>
<br/>
The company was registered in early 2022 under the ownership of Wilcrow Pty Ltd - a Turnbull family entity that has traditionally held its pastoral properties in the Upper Hunter.<br/>
<br/>
The pumped hydro projects, which would deliver long duration storage totalling more than 1.4 gigawatts for eight to 12 hours, could power a million homes.<br/>
<br/>
Upper Hunter Hydro has been granted access to the Glenbawn Dam and Glennies Creek Dam as part of its investigation.<br/>
<br/>
WaterNSW said the company would seek to secure all necessary approvals and consent for their projects.<br/>
<br/>
Elsewhere in the region, AGL and Idemitsu are exploring the feasibility of establishing a $450 million pumped hydro project at the former Muswellbrook Coal site at Bells Mountain.<br/>
<br/>
Mr Turnbull said pumped hydro projects would provide important support for industry and employment in the Hunter.<br/>
<br/>
"Australia has abundant wind and solar generation, some of the best in the world. But the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Pumped hydro provides the long duration energy storage we need to make renewables available 24/7 and secure our clean energy future," he said.<br/>
<br/>
"Renewables development is not for those wanting instant gratification .... but it is dawning on the market that we are going to need a lot more long duration storage than we thought."<br/>
<br/>
Mr Turnbull said the Upper Hunter Pumped Hydro would proceed to a detailed design phase that incorporates "wide ranging community and stakeholder engagement" as well as "thorough environmental assessment," to secure planning approvals and backing from investors.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.huntervalleynews.net.au/story/8536191/malcolm-turnbull-investigates-upper-hunter-pumped-hydro-opportunities/">https://www.huntervalleynews.net.au/story/8536191/malcolm-turnbull-investigates-upper-hunter-pumped-hydro-opportunities/</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-66451091039000219812024-02-27T20:17:00.001+13:002024-02-27T20:17:54.641+13:00<br /><br/>
<b> Antarctica's sea ice drops to an 'alarming low' for the third year in a row, scientists warn</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Here we go again: The ice loss is almost entirely in Western Antarctica, which is known for subsurface vulcanism. And volcanic eruptions are unpredictable, which is what they found. Nothing to do with global warming</i><br/>
<br/>
Antarctica's sea ice has dropped to an 'alarming' low during the southern hemisphere's summer, scientists have revealed.<br/>
<br/>
Ice surrounding Earth's southernmost continent now measures less than 772,200 square miles (2 million sq km), or about the size of Mexico.<br/>
<br/>
Worryingly, this is the third year in the row that this figure has fallen below this threshold, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).<br/>
<br/>
Less sea ice can threaten habitats for penguins, seals and other Antarctic animal life, and also contributes to a rise in global sea levels.<br/>
<br/>
Unfortunately, it follows a record-breaking low for Antarctica's sea ice during the winter as well.<br/>
<br/>
What is sea ice?<br/>
<br/>
Sea ice is simply frozen ocean water. It forms, grows, and melts in the ocean. It floats on the surface of the sea because it is less dense than liquid water. In contrast, icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves all originate on land.<br/>
<br/>
Sea ice is estimated to cover around 7 per cent of Earth's surface and about 12 per cent of the world's oceans.<br/>
<br/>
The lion's share of sea ice is contained within the polar ice packs in the Arctic and Southern oceans.<br/>
<br/>
These ice packs undergo season variations and are also affected locally on smaller time scales by wind, current and temperature fluctuations.<br/>
<br/>
Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at NSIDC, said experts 'don’t yet know the full reason' why sea ice is now at a record low, although 'global warming certainly could be a factor'.<br/>
<br/>
'It appears that warm ocean temperatures are important, but other factors may be in play, including wind patterns,' he told MailOnline. 'We have only 45 years of high quality data, which still may not capture all of the variability in the Antarctic sea ice.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13126187/Antarcticas-sea-ice-drops-alarming-low.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13126187/Antarcticas-sea-ice-drops-alarming-low.html</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> UK: Met Office concedes UK storms are not getting stronger ... but refuses to retract false climate claim</b><br/>
<br/>
Press Release<br/>
<br/>
London, 23 February - In response to a complaint by independent climate researcher Paul Homewood, the Met Office has acknowledged that “there is no evidence yet for an increase in wind gust strengths, although these are projected to increase with future climate change.”<br/>
<br/>
Yet despite this confirmation, the Met Office still refuses to retract a false claim made by one of its senior meteorologists on BBC Radio 5 last month, that storms in the UK are getting "more intense" due to climate change.<br/>
<br/>
The Met Office has already admitted, following an FOI request, that it has no evidence to support the claim. Indeed it provided its own recent reports which confirm no upward trend in wind speeds since 1969, and that several storms in the 1980s and 90s were very much more severe than anything seen since.<br/>
<br/>
The Global Warming Policy Foundation is calling on the Met Office to stop prevaricating over evident misinformation by retracting the false claim and providing the public with the true facts.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://mailchi.mp/ca048993e721/met-office-concedes-uk-storms-are-not-getting-stronger-201148?e=cc88839e92">https://mailchi.mp/ca048993e721/met-office-concedes-uk-storms-are-not-getting-stronger-201148?e=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> WHO Demands Global Meat Consumption Ban by 2025</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Wacky!</i><br/>
<br/>
The World Health Organization (WEF) has just upped the ante with its globalist “Net Zero” agenda by demanding that the general public must be banned from consuming meat and dairy products by 2025 globally.<br/>
<br/>
The head of the United Nations “health” agency, Tedros Adhanom, declared in a statement that citizens around the world must begin the shift to plant and insect-based “foods” in order to “save the planet” from “global warming.”<br/>
<br/>
“Our food systems are harming the health of our people and planet,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
“Food systems contribute to over 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and account for almost one-third of the global burden of disease.”<br/>
<br/>
He estimates that eight million lives could be saved each year with this one change. Although shifting away from red meat has been recommended for many years for health reasons, his motivation here appears to be purely environmental, with a context note on a video of him declaring the war on meat noting that climate change “refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns, mainly caused by human activities.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://evol.news/news/who-demands-global-meat-consumption-ban-by-2025/">https://evol.news/news/who-demands-global-meat-consumption-ban-by-2025/</a>
</p>
**********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Spending Hundreds of Millions to Make a 0.1 Percent Difference to the Great Barrier Reef</b><br/>
<br/>
By Peter Ridd<br/>
<br/>
Hard-working Aussie fishermen, and all the people who depend on them, are about to suffer severe restrictions on their production. And all based on dubious science.<br/>
<br/>
The barramundi fishery mostly operates in the creeks and rivers, or very close to shore. Our out-of-touch government ministers have never explained how catching a barra in a creek somehow damages the Reef, which is far from shore—mostly 40 to 100 kilometers (25 to 62 miles).<br/>
<br/>
But worse is to come as governments cast their net further afield.<br/>
<br/>
As part of the UNESCO demands, the federal government has announced that it is now restricting fishing in the southern Gulf of Carpentaria to “save the Reef.”<br/>
<br/>
That area of the Gulf is 700 kilometres from the Reef and on the wrong side (to the west) of Cape York Peninsula. How can catching a barra near Mornington Island affect the Reef? Was this really demanded by UNESCO or is it being used as a convenient tool by our government to further enforce extreme green environmental policies?<br/>
<br/>
If killing the barra fishery seems like a scientific folly, the recent letter from Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to UNESCO asking that the Reef not be listed as endangered contains an even bigger indication that the government, and the science institutions upon which they base their dubious decisions, have lost the plot.<br/>
<br/>
Ms. Plibersek’s letter proudly states that government schemes costing hundreds of millions of dollars have stopped 140,000 metric tonnes of sediment reaching the Reef from farms and cattle stations in the last decade.<br/>
<br/>
That 140,000 figure sounds like a lot of mud. But in a decade, the rivers in question carry roughly 1,000 times more sediment than that out into the ocean.<br/>
<br/>
So, they reduced the sediment to the Reef by a meagre 0.1 percent—and they made it a big deal!<br/>
<br/>
Before I was fired by James Cook University after calling for better quality assurance of Reef science, my group worked extensively on the impact of sediment.<br/>
<br/>
We invented some of the instrumentation for doing this work. We took more measurements than all the other groups combined. We showed that mud almost never reaches the Great Barrier Reef, which is far offshore. And even when it does, it is in minuscule quantities for only short periods of time. Even the inshore reefs, such as around Magnetic Island near Townsville, are barely influenced by mud coming directly from the rivers fed by tropical monsoon rains.<br/>
<br/>
Government-funded scientists and managers have thus spent hundreds of millions to make 0.1 percent difference to a non-problem.<br/>
<br/>
We must hope that they do not try to scale-up their effort and completely solve a problem that does not exist. At this rate, it would cost roughly 10 percent of Australia’s yearly GDP just to manage this one environmental factor.<br/>
<br/>
Strangely, Ms. Plibersek conveniently forgot to mention that data from the Australian Institute of Marine Science show that, since records began, the reef has never had more coral than in the last two years. People might think that Ms. Plibersek was on UNESCO’s side and doing their bidding.<br/>
<br/>
The time has come for a forensic audit of the science that is being used to smash the livelihood of hardworking Aussie farmers and fishers. The government is in effect picking off industries one at a time in a classic “salami” tactic.<br/>
<br/>
The Australian Environment Foundation is organising a coalition of affected small industries to fight back, and top of the list is to audit the science.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/spending-millions-on-making-a-0-1-percent-different-to-the-great-barrier-reef-5587687?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=opinion-1">https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/spending-millions-on-making-a-0-1-percent-different-to-the-great-barrier-reef-5587687?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=opinion-1</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-16286134387688984632024-02-26T17:55:00.001+13:002024-02-26T17:55:09.599+13:00<br /><br/>
<b> Obama-Era Moratorium on Federal Coal Leasing Axed by Appeals Court</b><br/>
<br/>
A federal appeals panel has thrown out a moratorium on new coal mine leases on public lands.<br/>
<br/>
The Feb. 21 ruling by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit overturns an August 2022 decision from Judge Brian Morris of the U.S. District of Montana, which reinstated a 2016 Obama administration moratorium.<br/>
<br/>
Initially, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a first-of-its-kind moratorium on all new coal leases on federal land in 2016 under Secretary Sally Jewell. A year later, Secretary Ryan Zinke, who succeeded Ms. Jewell, rescinded the moratorium.<br/>
<br/>
Current DOI Secretary Deb Haaland then revoked Mr. Zinke’s order shortly after taking office in 2021. But according to the appeals court ruling, when Secretary Haaland rescinded Mr. Zinke’s order, it didn’t reinstate the original 2016 moratorium on coal leasing.<br/>
<br/>
Environmental groups continued litigating Mr. Zinke’s order ending the moratorium, which led to the 2022 ruling. At the time, the DOI said it wanted to complete a thorough environmental analysis of the effects of burning coal from public lands before making a decision to formally reinstate the moratorium.<br/>
<br/>
“The district court reasoned that the Haaland Order’s failure to reinstate the coal leasing moratorium from the Jewell Order meant that the Zinke Order still remains in partial effect. That is incorrect,” the appeals court ruling said (pdf).<br/>
<br/>
While appellees may be dissatisfied with the government’s position that the Haaland Order did not revive the Jewell Order’s moratorium, this does not provide a basis for concluding that a challenge to the defunct Zinke Order is live.”<br/>
<br/>
The National Mining Association (NMA), along with the States of Montana and Wyoming, led the successful appeal, and all applauded the judge’s decision. In a media statement, NMA President and CEO Rich Nolan said it was a victory for American energy because energy projects can now move forward.<br/>
<br/>
“This is a victory for American-mined energy and we are pleased with the court’s recognition of the need to dismiss this irreparably flawed ruling,” he said.<br/>
Sen. Hawley Touts Ban on Imports of Critical Minerals Mined by Slave and Child Labor<br/>
<br/>
“With this ruling, important projects can once again advance and support the production of affordable, reliable power to the grid, while creating jobs and economic development across the country,” Mr. Nolan added.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/obama-era-federal-coal-leasing-moratorium-axed-by-appeals-court-5592330">https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/obama-era-federal-coal-leasing-moratorium-axed-by-appeals-court-5592330</a>
</p>
********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Chicago’s Legal Battle Against Big Oil</b><br/>
<br/>
The city of Chicago has filed a lawsuit against five major oil and gas companies, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, alleging that these companies have engaged in climate deception by misleading consumers about the dangers of climate change associated with their products. The lawsuit claims that these companies have known about the harmful effects of their products on the climate for decades and have actively concealed this information from the public.<br/>
<br/>
“The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face — including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events and shoreline erosion — are felt throughout every part of the city and disproportionately in low-income communities,” the city said in its lawsuit.<br/>
<br/>
Supporters of the lawsuit argue that the oil and gas industry has a moral and legal responsibility to address the harm caused by their products and that the lawsuit is an important step in holding these companies accountable for their actions. They link climate change to the burning of fossil fuels and argue that the industry has to inform consumers about the risks associated with their products.<br/>
<br/>
Critics of the lawsuit argue that it is misguided and that the responsibility for addressing climate change should not be placed solely on the shoulders of the oil and gas industry. They point out that these companies have taken steps to reduce their emissions and invest in renewable energy, and that the lawsuit could have unintended consequences, such as increasing the cost of energy for consumers.<br/>
<br/>
The lawsuit claims Chicago faces “more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events and shoreline erosion” due to the actions of these companies. However, available data contradicts this narrative. Weather records show no significant increase in extreme temperatures or precipitation, and flooding projections predict minimal impact for Chicago.<br/>
<br/>
Let’s look at the facts. What does weather.gov say about Official Extreme Weather Records for Chicago, IL?<br/>
<br/>
The highest temperature was in 1934, the warmest month was July 1955, the wettest year was 2008, and the greatest 24-hour precipitation was in 1987.<br/>
<br/>
Surely, there have been more days above 95°F in Chicago, IL recently. Below is a figure from the Fifth National Climate Assessment that shows a decrease of nearly 6 days annually above 95°F in Chicago, IL today relative to 1901-1960.<br/>
<br/>
This figure shows the observed change in the number of (a) hot days (days at or above 95°F) over the period 2002–2021 relative to 1901–1960. Figure credit: Project Drawdown, Washington State University Vancouver, NOAA NCEI, and CISESS NC.<br/>
<br/>
What are the outlooks for Chicago, IL in terms of flooding risk? Below is a figure from Nature Climate Change that suggests an increase of about 0-5% in average annual loss related to flooding by 2050.<br/>
<br/>
In fact, the Fifth National Climate Assessment has predicted a change of only 0-10% in total precipitation on heaviest 1% of days.<br/>
<br/>
In terms of coastal erosion, there has been little change in the water level of Lake Michigan in response to increasing concentrations of atmospheric GHGs.<br/>
<br/>
The observational data is clear, Chicago is not facing any threats from climate change. Not in extreme temps, flooding or coastal erosion. So then why the lawsuit?<br/>
<br/>
This is a clear attempt to recoup money from failed climate-related policies that are costing taxpayers billions. For example, the city of Chicago said it’s spending $188 million on climate projects in low-income communities.<br/>
<br/>
In this audacious quest for climate dollars, it appears that adherence to scientific evidence is an optional extra. The city’s actions raise the question: Is the battle against climate change being co-opted as a convenient facade for financial mismanagement?<br/>
<br/>
Chicago’s lawsuit, rather than being a noble fight for environmental justice, seems more like a high-stakes gamble with taxpayer money, betting against the oil giants in hopes of a lucrative payout. In the end, it’s the citizens who are left asking whether their city’s leadership is fighting for the planet, or merely fighting to cover up its fiscal blunders.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/chicagos-legal-battle-against-big-oil/">https://principia-scientific.com/chicagos-legal-battle-against-big-oil/</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Saskatchewan Premier Says Dropping Carbon Tax on Home Heating Helped With Inflation</b><br/>
<br/>
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says dropping the carbon tax on home heating helped Saskatchewan have the third-lowest inflation rate in the country last month.<br/>
<br/>
In January’s inflation numbers, released Feb. 20, Statistics Canada said the inflation rate for Saskatchewan was 1.9 percent, well below the national average of 2.9 percent.<br/>
<br/>
“In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024, contributing to the province’s year-over-year price decline of natural gas (-26.6%),” StatCan said.<br/>
Mr. Moe was quick to point that out on X.<br/>
“The Trudeau carbon tax was over a quarter of the cost of natural gas in SK,” Mr. Moe wrote. “If the feds are actually serious about fighting inflation, they would scrap the carbon tax on everyone and everything.”<br/>
<br/>
In a news release, Saskatchewan Crown Investments Minister Dustin Duncan added: “Imagine the significant impact it would have on gas prices, grocery prices and everything else we produce and transport in Canada if the federal government scrapped the carbon tax. Instead, they are fully committed to another carbon tax increase on April 1.”<br/>
<br/>
Saskatchewan stopped collecting carbon tax on home heating after the federal government paused carbon taxes on home heating oil, which is primarily used in the Atlantic provinces, but refused to extend the carve-out to other types of heating fuels. The federal government says that Saskatchewan’s pause is against the law.<br/>
<br/>
According to StatCan, a variety of factors played a role in January’s numbers.<br/>
<br/>
The January Consumer Price Index report points out there was an overall drop in natural gas prices of 16.4 percent across the country, along with an overall drop in gasoline prices of 4 percent.<br/>
<br/>
One prominent economist said while dropping the carbon tax on home heating in Saskatchewan likely had some effect, there are other items that played a bigger role in inflation.<br/>
<br/>
“It’s true, but the impact probably will be relatively small because home heating is only just part of the carbon tax impact. It also affects transportation costs and a whole bunch of other things,” Dr. Jack Mintz told the Epoch Times. Mr. Mintz is President’s Fellow at the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, and a distinguished fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.<br/>
<br/>
“It'll have some impact on reducing the cost of energy, but it’s not going to be huge,” added Mr. Mintz. “Food prices and shelter costs, and transportation are the three biggest items” in inflation.<br/>
<br/>
Still, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pointed out that Saskatchewan and Manitoba had among the lowest inflation numbers in the country—partly as a result of reducing taxes on energy.<br/>
<br/>
“Notice yesterday, the lowest inflation: Manitoba, Saskatchewan,” Mr. Poilievre told a news conference in Kingston on Feb. 21. “What did they do in Manitoba and Saskatchewan? Got rid of carbon taxes. They took the carbon tax off gas in Manitoba, they took it off heat in Saskatchewan,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Manitoba had an inflation rate in January of 0.8 percent, the lowest in the country.<br/>
<br/>
The Manitoba government gave credit to the provincial gas tax holiday that started on Jan. 1.<br/>
<br/>
“We took action right away to give people relief at the pump,” Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew said in a Feb. 20 news release. “Now we see that relief helping to lower costs across the province.”<br/>
However, the news release said it was the provincial fuel tax, not the carbon tax, that was dropped.<br/>
<br/>
“According to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from Statistics Canada, the gas tax holiday, which began on Jan. 1 and removed the 14-cent provincial tax on the price of gasoline, ‘directly contributed to a 0.4 per cent decrease to inflation,’” said the release. “Statistics Canada also noted Manitoba’s gasoline prices fell 20.2 per cent in January 2024 compared to January 2023,” it added.<br/>
<br/>
Still, Saskatchewan’s premier is not the only one saying the low inflation number for Saskatchewan may be significant.<br/>
<br/>
On Feb. 20, Sylvain Charlebois with Dalhousie University posted on X that “Saskatchewan’s experiment with the carbon tax contradicts the @bankofcanada’s assessment.”<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Charlebois, who is with the Agrifood Analytics Lab, added: “After the province eliminated the tax on only nat/gas, propane, and heating oil, its inflation rate fell by 0.8 percentage points in January. This is a larger decrease than the Bank’s prediction that the C-Tax would lead to a one-time drop of 0.6 percentage points in the inflation rate, over one year.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/saskatchewan-premier-says-dropping-carbon-tax-on-home-heating-helped-with-inflation-5592266">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/saskatchewan-premier-says-dropping-carbon-tax-on-home-heating-helped-with-inflation-5592266</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia: Nuclear, gas fuel consevatives' tilt at green madness</b><br/>
<br/>
In 2004, Australian electricity bills were the fourth-lowest in the OECD. The wind and solar caper had barely begun, and coal and gas supplied 91 per cent of the National Electricity Market.<br/>
<br/>
Today, after 20 years of subsidy chasing by the renewable energy industry, Australia has slipped to 10th place in the OECD rankings of end-user power prices.<br/>
<br/>
Of the nine countries where electricity is cheaper, six have nuclear power stations. They are Finland, Mexico, Switzerland, South Korea, Canada and the US. Of the remaining three, the wet and hilly ones, Norway and Iceland run mostly on hydropower because that’s the way God made them. Israel, somewhat unfashionably, has stuck with coal and gas but has other things to worry about.<br/>
<br/>
So much for Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s claim that the opposition is using nuclear power as a culture-war distraction. His argument collapses at the first brush with reality.<br/>
<br/>
Nuclear is the only baseload alternative to fossil fuel for the inhabitants of a wide and flat brown land unless we care to drill down 40km through the Earth’s crust to tap geothermal energy, which even Bowen must concede is impractical. The minister’s forlorn grab for supporting evidence in his article in The Weekend Australian suggests he knows he is losing the argument.<br/>
<br/>
Until recently, conventional wisdom held that a pro-nuclear policy would be the kiss of death for the Coalition. Yet Bowen would know how quickly public opinion is changing, even within the green movement. When voters are asked if they favour nuclear power, the numbers are usually tight.<br/>
<br/>
When the pollster asks if they would consider nuclear power, however, a clear majority say yes. The readiness to consider nuclear grows when they are asked about small modular reactors, notably among younger voters.<br/>
<br/>
Bowen’s foolhardy use of statistics is unnerving, given his power to call upon the resources of a sizeable government department to stop him from embarrassing himself. He writes that “by early 2025, renewable energy will surpass coal as the planet’s largest source of energy”. As the Energy Minister should know, energy differs from electricity, which accounts for just 20 per cent of global energy use, according to the International Energy Market’s latest data.<br/>
<br/>
Wind and solar accounted for 2.2 per cent of the world’s energy mix in 2019 if we assume it is what the IEA means by “other”. If we include hydropower in the renewables basket, it rises to 4.8 per cent.<br/>
<br/>
Oil accounts for 31 per cent, down from 44 per cent in 1971, but the gap has been filled by gas (up from 16 to 23 per cent) and nuclear (0.5 per cent to 5 per cent). Coal has remained steady at 26 per cent.<br/>
<br/>
The data does not exactly leap to Bowen’s defence, even if we assume he has conflated energy with electricity. In 2019, wind, solar and biofuels generated 10.8 per cent of the world’s electricity, and hydro 15.7 per cent. Fossil thermal fuel was by far the biggest contributor at 63 per cent.<br/>
<br/>
Admittedly, the IEA’s reporting is somewhat tardy, but it would take a hockey stick curve of Michael Mann-ic proportions for renewables to overtake coal by this time next year, even if it were feasible.<br/>
<br/>
Bowen’s suggestion that nuclear projects fall like skittles is equally hard to substantiate. The World Nuclear Association lists 62 nuclear plants under construction in 17 countries. They include 26 in China. Some 440 more are listed as either planned or proposed, of which 196 are in China, 25 in Russia and five in Iran.<br/>
<br/>
Yet Peter Dutton would be foolish to assume the argument is as good as won, or that a nuclear policy is a substitute for a convincing energy policy.<br/>
<br/>
Even on the most optimistic timetable, nuclear will not be part of our energy mix before the mid-2030s and investment won’t flow without a thorough reform of the energy market.<br/>
<br/>
The short answer to almost every question is gas. The Opposition Leader will have little trouble persuading his own party room, where past battles have instilled a degree of energy literacy. He should prepare for considerable opposition from his own party at the state level, however, where many Coalition MPs have formed a unity ticket with Labor and the Greens in opposition to the imagined climate emergency.<br/>
<br/>
Dutton should not underestimate the quantity of the venom in the hornet’s nest he has disturbed by challenging the orthodoxy that prevails in the media, universities and government departments. As Tony Abbott discovered, these people are not prepared to surrender their dogma in this policy debate without a fight.<br/>
<br/>
An even more formidable opponent will be the energy industry, where a powerful combination of virtue signalling and naked self-interest has set in.<br/>
<br/>
The energy industry with few exceptions is not campaigning for fossil fuel, as renewable advocates often claim. It is busy chasing subsidies and playing with the market. It has worked out easier ways to make money than supplying customers with affordable and reliable electricity. Renewable Energy Certificates have proved be a more dependable source of revenue than the energy itself.<br/>
<br/>
Labor’s planned Capacity Investment Scheme, which is supposed to underwrite 32GW of renewal energy investment, has the added appeal of letting them make money without actually turning the generation plants on. It provides an even stronger incentive to stop nuclear before it eats their lunch.<br/>
<br/>
Over the past 10 years, the renewable energy industrial complex has grown in strength and sophistication. It channels tens of millions of dollars into grassroots campaigns in Australia, creating an almost bottomless war chest to fund lawfare and buy influence in politics. Renewable energy interests almost entirely underwrote the teal campaign in 2022. Dutton shouldn’t expect any of these so-called independents to back nuclear anytime soon, despite their claim to be the heroes putting integrity back into politics.<br/>
<br/>
Big renewables will fight almost as hard against gas, even though quick-start-up turbines are the quickest and cheapest way to firm the supply of the intermittent energy they fitfully supply. Gas threatens their investment in batteries for the same reason nuclear threatens renewables.<br/>
<br/>
The cause of common sense is not just lost. Dutton has defeated the woke Goliath once and could do so again. Corporate support for the voice, however, was mainly motivated by virtue signalling rather than crude financial self-interest.<br/>
<br/>
To use the words that turned boxing announcer Michael Buffer into a household name, “get ready to rumble”.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/nuclear-gas-fuel-duttons-tilt-at-green-madness/news-story/a262ff196775cf84fbe4179871c1e150">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/nuclear-gas-fuel-duttons-tilt-at-green-madness/news-story/a262ff196775cf84fbe4179871c1e150</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-25235890691852198642024-02-25T16:38:00.003+13:002024-02-25T16:39:31.159+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Mercedes-Benz to update combustion engine cars amid EV demand slowdown</b><br/>
<br/>
STUTTGART (Reuters) - Mercedes-Benz on Thursday toned down expectations on EV demand and said it will update its combustion engine lineup well into next decade, becoming the latest carmaker to flag a slower than expected appetite for electric cars.<br/>
<br/>
The company, which has been preparing for all-electric sales by 2030, said it now expects electrified sales - including hybrids - to account for up to 50% of the total by that date.<br/>
<br/>
CEO Ola Kaellenius cautioned towards the end of last year that even Europe would likely not be ready by 2030 for an all-electric lineup, with multiple studies showing customers were holding back for a range of reasons including a lack of charging infrastructure and appealing electric models.<br/>
Kaellenius said Mercedes-Benz wanted customers and investors to know it was well-positioned to carry on producing combustion engine cars and was ready to update the technology well into next decade.<br/>
<br/>
Its current plans for updates mean "it is almost like we will have a new lineup in 2027 that will take us well into the 2030s," Kaellenius said.<br/>
<br/>
While automakers and suppliers are betting big on future demand for electric vehicles, investment in capacity and technology development has outrun actual EV demand, boosting pressure on companies to cut costs.<br/>
<br/>
Mercedes-Benz is working through supply chain challenges, CEO says<br/>
<br/>
Slower economic growth, supply chain bottlenecks, and trade tensions between China and both the U.S. and European Union also weighed on Mercedes-Benz's outlook for 2024, the carmaker said, forecasting lower returns on sales across its car and van division.<br/>
<br/>
First-quarter sales are likely to be below the previous year's level, it said.<br/>
<br/>
Electrified vehicle sales, including of hybrids, were expected to remain at approximately 19-21% of the total, Mercedes-Benz said, in line with reports across the industry of slower growth in EV demand.<br/>
<br/>
The luxury car maker reported an adjusted return on sales in its car division of 12.6% for 2023, in line with its forecast, as inflation and supply chain-related costs as well as component shortages ate into its profits.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/mercedes-benz-to-update-combustion-engine-cars-amid-ev-demand-slowdown/ar-BB1iHuTf">https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/other/mercedes-benz-to-update-combustion-engine-cars-amid-ev-demand-slowdown/ar-BB1iHuTf</a>
</p>
****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Climate Change Isn’t Endangering Fish Stocks</b><br/>
<br/>
The oceans are still very much a mystery to humankind, with a vast majority of it yet to be explored. Early in my career, I wanted to make an in-depth study of how climate affected marine life. After all, many media reports claimed that “oceans will become empty by 2048.”<br/>
<br/>
So, as a graduate research assistant, I explored the adaptability of marine fish and invertebrates to fluctuations in ocean temperatures. I found that both are highly adaptable to changes in the water around them. That is the way they are made.<br/>
<br/>
Now, evidence emerging from scientific studies shows that marine life may be benefiting from the relative warmth of modern temperatures.<br/>
<br/>
Contrary to the hyperbole of climate reporters, there has been no alarming increase in global sea-surface temperatures. Even if temperatures increase substantially, fish are free to migrate to cooler waters and do, as documented by scientific studies.<br/>
<br/>
Fish also have natural adaptive mechanisms. Since their initial emergence in Earth’s waters, fish have developed genetically in ways that allow them not only to survive but to thrive in a variety of environments. In addition to the generational genetic adaptability, fish also display short-term phenotypic plasticity which allows them to adapt to temperatures and other physical factors. When combined, these mechanisms act as significant protection against the ill-effects of the physical environment.<br/>
<br/>
Despite this, it is not uncommon to see news of fisheries crashing under the weight of a climate crisis. However, real-world data contradict such negative reports, indicating instead that global fish catches will improve in the coming decades.<br/>
<br/>
A 2016 scientific study “assembled the largest-of-its-kind database and coupled it to state-of-the-art bioeconomic models for more than 4,500 fisheries around the world.” The study found that global fisheries will profit from an increase in marine species. The degree of this commercial success will depend on a range of policy measures, including ones that enable increased catches for individuals and communities.<br/>
<br/>
In 2020, there was a record 214 million tonnes of production from both wild catches and aquaculture. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022 report says that this production is expected to grow 14 percent by 2030. Fish are expected to become more affordable and accessible, with prices decreasing between 2024-2029, according to two international bodies: the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) that published the data in Agricultural Outlook.<br/>
<br/>
As of 2017, around 65% of fish stocks were biologically sustainable. An index of population health is maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the point at which the stock can sustain itself without limits on fishing. The MSY calculation involves collaborative information gathering by marine biologists and fishers.<br/>
<br/>
The 2022 report states that the number of catches from biologically sustainable stocks has been on the rise! This signals that catches can be increased without depleting the stock to levels that neither the species nor continued fishing is at risk. While some concerns remain for a few species, studies show that in regions where we have high-quality population data, the majority of fish stocks are either stable or improving.<br/>
<br/>
In short, any threat to future catches is not “empty” seas but rather the effect of activities such as illegal fishing and overfishing. Fish as an important protein source is likely to remain available in large quantities. Reality contradicts the fallacious climate crisis that dominates popular media and politics.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/its-true-mainstream-media-climate-change-isnt-endangering-fish-stocks/">https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/its-true-mainstream-media-climate-change-isnt-endangering-fish-stocks/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> A professor of renewable energy at work</b><br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-image">
<a class="asset-img-link" style="display: inline;" href="https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/02/16/23/81366181-13092919-image-a-12_1708125248247.jpg"><img class="asset asset-image at-xid-6a00e008de3ffc883402c8d3abd747200b img-responsive" alt="image from https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/02/16/23/81366181-13092919-image-a-12_1708125248247.jpg" title="image from https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/02/16/23/81366181-13092919-image-a-12_1708125248247.jpg" src="https://jonjayray1.typepad.com/.a/6a00e008de3ffc883402c8d3abd747200b-580wi" /></a><br />
</p>
The Canadian tourist charged with abducting and sexually assaulting an 80-year-old grandmother with Alzheimer's at a luxurious Bahamas resort has been granted bail and will be allowed to return to his home country.<br/>
<br/>
Gordon Wilkie, 61, of New Waterford, Nova Scotia, was granted bail of $30,000 this week after being charged with rape in the January 28 attack at the Warwick Hotel Paradise Island Bahamas.<br/>
<br/>
'This is devastating,' the victim's son David Ahrens told DailyMail.com, saying the family received 'no notice or details' about a bail hearing before the ruling.<br/>
<br/>
Wilkie, a community college professor of renewable energy, is accused of separating the vulnerable victim from her daughter in an elevator and raping her in his hotel room.<br/>
<br/>
Prosecutors had opposed bail for Wilkie, but Justice Franklyn Williams granted it on Monday after the suspect's attorney raised health concerns, saying his blood pressure was not being properly treated in jail.<br/>
<br/>
Wilkie was eligible for release as early as Thursday, but as of Friday afternoon it did not appear that he had posted bail.<br/>
<br/>
His attorney, Ryszard Humes, declined to comment when reached by DailyMail.com.<br/>
<br/>
Wilkie will be allowed to return to Canada while free on bail pending trial, a person close to the case told DailyMail.com.<br/>
<br/>
However, he must return to the Bahamas to appear in court for the presentation of a voluntary bill of indictment on May 29, and subsequent arraignment before the Supreme Court, the person said.<br/>
<br/>
A source close to prosecutors said they had a difficult time proving that Wilkie was a flight risk, and that he had no prior convictions in the Bahamas, which weakened their argument that he should be denied bail.<br/>
<br/>
Last week, DailyMail.com was the first to report that Wilkie is a faculty member at Novia Scotia Community College, where he specializes in renewable energy and has been placed on leave following his arrest.<br/>
<br/>
Wilkie runs a solar-power installation company and was an instructor in renewable energy at NSCC's Dartmouth campus, according to a 2021 CBC News interview.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13116695/bahamas-rape-bail-canadian-professor-gordon-wilkie.html">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13116695/bahamas-rape-bail-canadian-professor-gordon-wilkie.html</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia: Inquiry Ponders How Government Can Legislate Against Climate Change Health Risks</b><br/>
<br/>
The government is hearing testimony on whether to require lawmakers to consider the ‘health and wellbeing of children in Australia’ when approving mines.<br/>
<br/>
Questions remain over how exactly the federal Australian government can define, and legislate, a climate change risk to the “health and wellbeing” of children.<br/>
<br/>
A Senate Committee is examining an amendment to the Albanese government’s Climate Change Act 2022 to require legislators to consider the health of children when making significant decisions.<br/>
<br/>
The Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 would also restrict approvals for mining activities related to coal, oil, and natural resources if they pose a “material risk of harm” to children.<br/>
<br/>
While medical bodies like the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP), as well as several climate change activist groups, shared their views on the health risks caused by climate change, the issue of how exactly the government would legislate against this, was largely left unanswered.<br/>
<br/>
“How would you expect decision-makers to correctly identify a project-specific impact on health, in a context where the cumulative impact of emissions over many years is causing climate change? How would you see that point of identification?” said Labor Senator Karen Grogan on the morning of Feb. 22.<br/>
<br/>
In response, Dr. Catherine Pendrey, chair of the Climate and Environmental Medicine Specific Interest Group at RACGP, said her organisation would not “specifically comment on the functions of the court.”<br/>
<br/>
“I believe it’s the young people in Australia that have been taking these issues to court, rather than members of the medical profession,” she told the Senate Environment, Communications Legislation Committee.<br/>
<br/>
Senator Grogan said that she had no argument with climate change science, but was concerned about the impact of how the law would operate on the ground.<br/>
<br/>
“Will it have the intended impact? Or will it ... have unintended consequences, and limit the ability of the structures—that the Labor government’s put in place over the last 18 months—to try and ramp up action on climate change?”<br/>
<br/>
She further added, “I’m asking how you would believe an administrative decision maker would make that assessment [on the health impact of climate change?]”<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Michael Bonning, chair of the Public Health Committee at the Australian Medical Association, said there was evidence of legislators coming to conclusions based on available evidence and “utilising that going forward.”<br/>
<br/>
“As for internal administrative procedures, we obviously aren’t able to comment on that.”<br/>
<br/>
When asked the same question, Anjali Sharma, a young climate change activist, conceded it was difficult to quantify the impact of a fossil fuel project, but added that the “cumulative impact of all these decisions is what we young people will face down the road.”<br/>
<br/>
“I know that 50 years down the road—in a world that potentially has seen warming past 1.5 degrees Celsius—we will not be able to look back and point to that one specific decision that was the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she said.<br/>
<br/>
‘Health Impact Assessments’ Mentioned<br/>
<br/>
Dr. Kate Wylie, from Doctors for the Environment Australia, provided, what she termed “the beginning of an answer” to the senator’s question.<br/>
<br/>
“We have Health Impact Assessments for various projects ... and they do not consider climate change impacts. We could broaden the scope of the Health Impact Assessments to include climate change, and how that impacts on children’s health.”<br/>
<br/>
Heath Darrant, national coordinator of the Australian Medical Students’ Association, concurred, saying Australia could adopt the United Nation’s Child Rights Impact Assessment Model.<br/>
<br/>
“And I know Wales used that in their [Wellbeing of Future Generation Act] that they implemented, which is a similar bill that’s being discussed here today. And New Zealand also uses the same model to come up with criteria on what constitutes an impact on health.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/inquiry-ponders-how-government-can-legislate-against-climate-change-health-risks-5592318">https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/inquiry-ponders-how-government-can-legislate-against-climate-change-health-risks-5592318</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-12360121888625383962024-02-22T19:04:00.002+13:002024-02-22T19:04:39.219+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Industrial Wind Turbines demonstrate their Unreliable and Intermittent Nature Generating 1.8% of their Capacity than jumping to 80.4% only a few days later</b><br/>
<br/>
Yesterday, February 9th, 2024, those IWT spread throughout Ontario were impressive generating 94,605 MWh or about what 3.1 million average households would consume in a day suggesting they are the panacea to stop climate change! Mere days before on February 3rd and the first seven hours on February 4th they generated only 2,673 MWh which was 1.8% of their capacity in those 31 hours.<br/>
<br/>
As the expression goes; they continually demonstrate their “traditional yo yo” tendencies as the following screenshot from IESO February 5th to the 10th demonstrates. They are the “green” in the chart which basically shows their intermittent and unreliable nature whereas the dark blue is natural gas which has the ability to ramp up and down as demand changes and to keep our grid from failing and causing blackouts.<br/>
<br/>
So, the question one should ask, was the power delivered by those IWT on the 9th of February needed here in the province?<br/>
<br/>
As it turns out 65.8% of the IWT generation or 62,259 MW were not really needed as IESO’s intertie data (net-exports) shows it went to our neighbours in Quebec, New York and Michigan and the average sale price over the 24 hours was $19.42/MWh and well below what we Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers paid for it. If we assume it was all surplus IWT generation those net-exports, we paid those contracted parties $135/MWh for; suggests the total cost of what was sold to our neighbours came to $8,404,965 but the price we were paid by our neighbours was an average of only that $19.42/MWh. Using the latter average price received over the 24 hours means we earned only $1,227,774!<br/>
<br/>
The net result is we Ontario ratepayers/taxpayers have to eat the loss of $7,177,218 for just that one day’s IWT generation. The foregoing is not the exception particularly when Ontario’s peak demand is relatively low as it was yesterday reaching only 17,057 MW at hour 19.<br/>
<br/>
For the foregoing reasons, we should wonder why the Ontario Minister of Energy is instructing IESO to extend the IWT contracts when their 20-year terms are up as they do nothing but increase our electricity costs. Those costs will be exacerbated by the addition of BESS (battery energy storage systems) as the latter will simply add another costly layer in an attempt to keep our grid reliable!<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/10/industrial-wind-turbines-demonstrate-their-unreliable-and-intermittent-nature-generating-1-8-of-their-capacity-than-jumping-to-80-4-only-a-few-days-later/">https://parkergallantenergyperspectivesblog.wordpress.com/2024/02/10/industrial-wind-turbines-demonstrate-their-unreliable-and-intermittent-nature-generating-1-8-of-their-capacity-than-jumping-to-80-4-only-a-few-days-later/</a>
</p>
******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Supreme Court will hear challenge to EPA's 'good neighbor' rule that limits pollution</b><br/>
<br/>
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in an important environmental case that centers on the obligation to be a "good neighbor."<br/>
<br/>
Lawyers representing three states, companies and industry groups will ask the justices to block a federal rule that's intended to limit ozone air pollution. Experts said it's only the third time in more than 50 years that the court has scheduled arguments on an emergency application like this one.<br/>
<br/>
At the heart of the dispute is the part of the Clean Air Act known as the "good neighbor" provision. It's designed to help protect people from severe health problems they face because of pollution that floats downwind from neighboring states.<br/>
<br/>
"Air pollution doesn't respect state borders," said Harvard Law School professor Richard Lazarus.<br/>
<br/>
The facts of the case<br/>
<br/>
States like Wisconsin, New York and Connecticut can struggle to meet federal standards and reduce harmful levels of ozone because of emissions from coal plant smokestacks, cement kilns and natural gas pipelines that drift across their borders.<br/>
<br/>
"One of the primary reasons that Congress passed this law in 1970 was the one place you could not trust the states to do it on their own was when there was interstate air pollution," Lazarus said.<br/>
<br/>
Vickie Patton, general counsel at the Environmental Defense Fund, said these bedrock protections can save lives.<br/>
<br/>
"There are children, there are older adults, people who work outside in the summer and people who are afflicted by asthma who are at very, very serious risk, and this case is just about asking those upwind polluters to do their fair share," Patton said.<br/>
<br/>
Three of those upwind states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — alongside companies including Kinder Morgan Inc. and U.S. Steel Corp. want the Supreme Court to freeze the good neighbor rule while they pursue an appeal with a lower court in the D.C. Circuit.<br/>
<br/>
The Supreme Court steps in early<br/>
<br/>
Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas and author of a book putting these kinds of emergency actions by the Supreme Court into context, said the other two cases where the justices entertained arguments at this stage involved vaccine mandates during the coronavirus pandemic.<br/>
<br/>
The good neighbor case, on the other hand, doesn't present those same kinds of issues, he said.<br/>
<br/>
"If this is an emergency, what isn't?" Vladeck asked. "There are lots of federal polices that are going to have massive stakes and they're going to have massive stakeholders on both sides. It's not at all obvious why this case merits this kind of special treatment."<br/>
<br/>
Traditionally, the Supreme Court goes last — after a case has made its way through the lower courts and a variety of facts and arguments have been aired.<br/>
<br/>
"This case hasn't really gone very far at all," Vladeck said. "I mean, the only thing that's happened in the entire litigation to date is that the D.C. Circuit, the federal appeals court, refused to give the same thing that they're now asking the Supreme Court for, refused to basically pause the rule at the beginning of the litigation."<br/>
<br/>
The rule in question<br/>
<br/>
Lawyers for the states and companies challenging the good neighbor rule declined to talk before the arguments. In court papers, they call the EPA rule a "disaster" and "a shell of itself."<br/>
<br/>
That's because the plan originally applied to 23 states. But lower courts have hit pause in about half of them for a bunch of different reasons, in separate litigation.<br/>
<br/>
These lawyers said states shouldn't have to shoulder the costs for what they say is an unlawful federal mandate, criticizing the EPA for taking a "top-down" approach to the rule.<br/>
<br/>
But environmental advocates say many of the obligations in the new rule won't kick in until 2026, giving big polluters a couple of years to prepare. The rule is already in force and protecting people in a number of states, they add.<br/>
<br/>
Lazarus, at Harvard Law School, said to win a pause at the Supreme Court, the states challenging the rule will have to meet what's typically a high bar by showing they're likely to win on the merits and they're suffering irreparable harm.<br/>
<br/>
A skeptical Supreme Court<br/>
<br/>
Even so, Lazarus said, regulators and environmental advocacy groups have had a hard time at the Supreme Court over the past few years. First, the justices struck down the Clean Power Plan. Then, they slashed the EPA's jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. And just last month, they seemed skeptical about another case involving regulations for the fishing industry.<br/>
<br/>
"It certainly seems like a court is sort of on a juggernaut to cut back in an aggressive way on sort of federal environmental law," he added.<br/>
<br/>
Patton, whose environmental group submitted a friend of the court brief in the case, said she'll be watching closely.<br/>
<br/>
"Industry has a responsibility to be a good neighbor under our nation's clean air laws, and I hope the Supreme Court does not upend those protections," Patton said.<br/>
<br/>
There's no clear timetable for a decision from the justices<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/02/21/1232513666/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-rule">https://www.npr.org/2024/02/21/1232513666/supreme-court-epa-good-neighbor-rule</a>
</p>
**************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> 'Sue and Settle' Looks to Some Like Crony Democracy. And Under Biden's Lawfaring Eco-Politics, It's Back</b><br/>
<br/>
When the Biden administration announced in 2022 that it would remove some 4 million acres of federal land in Western states from oil and gas exploration, environmental groups hailed the decision as a milestone in their fight against global warming.<br/>
<br/>
“With the oil and gas industry bent on despoiling American’s public lands and fueling the climate crisis, this is a critical opportunity for the Biden administration to chart a new path toward clean energy and independence from fossil fuels,” said Jeremy Nichols, a director with WildEarth Guardians.<br/>
<br/>
But Nichols could just as easily have slapped himself on the back: The administration’s move was part of a private settlement of a lawsuit filed by WildEarth and others over the objections of energy consortiums, whose efforts to intervene in the matter were dismissed.<br/>
<br/>
A similar thing happened last August, when the Biden administration announced it had agreed to exclude 6 million acres of the energy-rich Gulf of Mexico seabed from exploration to settle a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, including the Sierra Club - an announcement that triggered operational delays for the industry and expensive litigation to overturn.<br/>
<br/>
Administration critics say these moves reflect the resurgence of a practice embraced by the Obama administration and rejected during Donald Trump’s presidency: “sue and settle.” The tactic is simple: An advocacy group sues a federal agency for failing to enforce laws or regulations. Agency officials and the plaintiffs then come to a private agreement and that deal is ratified by the courts via a binding consent decree.<br/>
<br/>
The practice is common at every level of government. New York City, for example, is obligated to house and feed tens of thousands of migrants because of a consent decree it entered into to settle a 1979 lawsuit brought by advocates for the homeless. But it is most prevalent in the environmental field, where well-funded groups commonly sue the Environmental Protection Agency or the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior alleging failure to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act or regulations regarding federal leases for energy production.<br/>
<br/>
Although such consent decrees do not have the force of laws passed by Congress or regulations issued by the government that have gone through formal review and allow for public comment, they set the rules of the road. Critics say it has allowed government to advance policy goals that cannot be achieved through normal democratic channels.<br/>
<br/>
American Energy Alliance<br/>
<br/>
Thomas Pyle: "It’s a nefarious practice in which the agency and the environmental groups get what they want.”<br/>
American Energy Alliance<br/>
“It’s not really an adversarial lawsuit, and with a settlement agreement and consent decree the case is never really over,” said Dave Tryon, director of litigation at the free-market Buckeye Institute. “The EPA is anxious to increase its power and control; it’s always happy to expand that.”<br/>
<br/>
The legal maneuver represents, according to this view, a return to the proverbial smoked-filled backrooms of politics. Huddled privately, without input from citizens or businesses that may be adversely affected by the decisions – let alone the public at large – lawsuits that often involve parties more simpatico than adversarial are settled. The plaintiffs and defendants are familiar to one another from years in the environmental lobbying and litigation world – and because of the “revolving door” between environmental groups and Democratic administrations. These like-minded players approach the issue seeking similar goals, a process that has only intensified with the Biden administration and leftist environmental groups sharing the belief that global warming is an existential threat.<br/>
<br/>
“Overall, it’s harkening back to the bad old days – they do this in order to avoid scrutiny and bypass the regulatory process,” said Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research. “It’s a way to advance an agenda that may be rejected by voters. It’s a nefarious practice in which the agency and the environmental groups get what they want.”<br/>
<br/>
Sue-and-settle is part of an even broader effort known as “lawfare,” in which political parties and advocacy groups seek to achieve their goals not through elections or legislation but in the courts. This encompasses everything from President Trump’s “stop the steal” efforts to overturn the 2020 election through the courts to myriad efforts by Democrats, whose lawfare campaigns have ranged from getting courts to confiscate Trump’s businesses and charge him criminally to removing him from the 2024 ballot.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/02/21/sue_and_settle_looks_to_some_like_crony_democracy_and_under_bidens_lawfaring_eco-politics_its_back_1012674.html">https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2024/02/21/sue_and_settle_looks_to_some_like_crony_democracy_and_under_bidens_lawfaring_eco-politics_its_back_1012674.html</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia to pay coal generators nearly $1bn</b><br/>
<br/>
<i> Crazy. They take with one hand and give with the other. Greenies will be livid</i><br/>
<br/>
Anthony Albanese will pay coal generators nearly $1bn in rebates under his market intervention which capped the price of coal used for electricity at $125 a tonne, according to the latest estimates from the Department of Climate Change and Energy.<br/>
<br/>
Labor’s energy market intervention was triggered in December 2022 by the need to shield Australians from rising electricity prices, which were forecast in the October budget that year to increase by about 20 per cent over 2022-23 followed by a further 36 per cent rise in 2023-24.<br/>
<br/>
Retail gas prices were also forecast to increase by up to 20 per cent in both 2022-23 and 2023-24. The government responded by working with NSW and Queensland to set a price cap on coal used for electricity generation at $125 a tonne, while imposing a price ceiling on new domestic wholesale gas contracts for east coast producers at $12 per gigajoule.<br/>
<br/>
Under the intervention, additional financial support is supplied in cases where the costs of production exceed the cost of supply under the cap. Mr Albanese initially dismissed suggestions that compensation for generators under the arrangements could rise into the hundreds of millions.<br/>
<br/>
But initial estimates provided to parliament’s cost of living committee in early 2023 by the Department of Climate Change and Energy suggested that the combined fiscal cost of the coal generator rebates to the Commonwealth, NSW and Queensland governments would be in the order of $1.5bn to $2bn, with the Commonwealth paying a 50 per cent share.<br/>
<br/>
In a letter sent on Tuesday, Department Secretary David Fredericks provided an updated estimate based on the decline in the market price of thermal coal over the past year. The new estimate was in line with the department’s initial analysis, but slightly lower than the upper figure of $2bn.<br/>
<br/>
“DCCEEW’s revised estimate of the maximum total fiscal cost of the rebates associated with the coal price caps is $1.85bn, with the Commonwealth government committed to paying half under the arrangement reached with the New South Wales and Queensland governments,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Responding to a request for the updated figure from Nationals Senator Matt Canavan, Mr Fredericks said the new estimate was “less than the previous estimate provided to the Senate Cost of Living Inquiry in February 2023.”<br/>
<br/>
The update from Mr Fredericks suggests the Commonwealth will still need to fork out $925m for coal generators – half the estimated $1.85bn total fiscal cost of the rebates under the price cap.<br/>
<br/>
The latest update from the Australian Energy Regulator revealed the cost of producing electricity in 2023 had fallen by as much as 64 per cent in a year and that wholesale electricity prices were running closer to longer-term averages.<br/>
<br/>
The AER said milder weather, fewer coal supply issues and an increase in cheap wind and solar energy had helped drive the reduction. But it also noted another factor – lower fuel costs partly driven by the government’s intervention.<br/>
<br/>
However, Senator Canavan argued that “massive government subsidies don’t lower electricity prices to our economy. Subsidies just transfer the cost of our inept energy policies from consumers to taxpayers.”<br/>
<br/>
“To lift real wages we have to focus on lowering the costs of production. The government’s clumsy interventions have clearly chilled investment in new energy supplies in Australia. The US is doubling its LNG capacity while we remain at a standstill,” he said. “Our lack of investment in reliable energy supplies will continue to increase electricity prices for all over time.”<br/>
<br/>
Leading energy economists have recently suggested there is no longer a strong rationale to extend Labor’s coal price cap beyond the middle of 2024, given the moderation in short-term coal prices.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/commonwealth-to-pay-coal-generators-nearly-1bn/news-story/5b669a4b8a760085c9dba4d6c88cc172">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/commonwealth-to-pay-coal-generators-nearly-1bn/news-story/5b669a4b8a760085c9dba4d6c88cc172</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-19999133622626756022024-02-21T19:23:00.002+13:002024-02-21T19:24:51.321+13:00<br>
<b> Biden’s Green Energy Plans Would Require Covering The American West In Solar Panels</b><br/>
<br/>
Environmentalists say they want to preserve the natural world in its original, pristine state.<br/>
<br/>
Yet the climate change activists among them would instead cast a solar panel shroud of human fabrication over parts of the great American West.<br/>
<br/>
President Biden has given them the green light<br/>
<br/>
The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management last month updated its Western Solar Plan, detailing options to open public land for large solar projects.<br/>
<br/>
The bureau’s earlier blueprint allowed 16 million acres of public land to be used for solar development, which has now been enlarged to 22 million acres across 11 Western states. That’s more than 34,000 square miles — about the size of Maine.<br/>
<br/>
Only portions of this land would be used. There are exclusions for steeply sloped terrain, tracts containing sensitive environmental and cultural resources, and land beyond a 10-mile distance from current or planned transmission lines.<br/>
<br/>
Altogether, about 700,000 acres would be used to support the administration’s plan to convert the entire electric grid to intermittent sources such as solar and wind by 2035.<br/>
<br/>
The scheme would add to the more than 11,000 megawatts of solar, wind, and geothermal energy the administration boasts it has already approved, which will provide electricity for more than 3.5 million homes — unless it’s a cloudy or windless day.<br/>
<br/>
The Interior Department’s period for public comment on the revised plan ends April 18.<br/>
<br/>
In addition to the massive human footprint blighting the natural environment, solar energy development has other downsides.<br/>
<br/>
Most obvious is that even in the sun-drenched West, the sun doesn’t shine at night, which means backup power must always remain on standby.<br/>
<br/>
And while solar panel manufacturing has exploded to meet growing world demand, it is not the United States that stands to benefit from Mr. Biden’s green energy policies.<br/>
<br/>
In the past decade, China has grabbed a more than 80% market share of panel manufacturing, according to the International Energy Agency.<br/>
<br/>
Increasing U.S. supply chain dependence and China’s export profits is hardly what the president has in mind with his “build back better” agenda.<br/>
<br/>
Also, solar panels lose their capacity to transform sunlight into electrons in the course of an estimated 30 years of use. What to do with the expired sheets of glass and metal that no longer generate power?<br/>
<br/>
According to the Department of Energy, the cost of recycling runs up to $45 per panel, which is far more than the $5 cost of disposal. That means most are destined for a landfill.<br/>
<br/>
The consequence is a heap of trash that the International Renewable Energy Agency estimates could weigh in at 77 million tons by 2050 — yet another environmental blight.<br/>
<br/>
With next-generation panels providing greater efficiency at lower cost, the option of replacing aging panels with new ones could result in 50 times as much waste, according to a 2021 Harvard Business Review study. Oops.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climatechangedispatch.com/bidens-green-energy-plans-require-covering-the-american-west-in-solar-panels/">https://climatechangedispatch.com/bidens-green-energy-plans-require-covering-the-american-west-in-solar-panels/</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Foundations Who Channel Public Funds Into ‘Renewable’ Energy</b><br/>
<br/>
Of all rackets, the so-called ‘renewable energy’ racket may be the most fraudulent and nonsensical.<br/>
<br/>
What geologists call the Last Glacial Period occurred between c. 115,000 – c. 11,700 years ago.<br/>
<br/>
Pretty much ALL human development has occurred since the glaciers retreated.<br/>
<br/>
During the last Ice Age, glaciers advanced as far south as what is now the state of Missouri.<br/>
<br/>
They retreated at a time when human population is estimated to have numbered around 4 million.<br/>
<br/>
The so-called ‘greenhouse gases’—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone—comprise less than one percent of the earth’s atmosphere.<br/>
<br/>
Even scientists who pay lip service to the human induced global warming theory acknowledge that for most of the last 300 million years, CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere were much higher than they are today.<br/>
<br/>
In the 1970s, climatologists were concerned that modern man would soon experience another cooling trend, resulting in yet another glacial advance that would bulldoze the cities of Canada and much of the United States.<br/>
<br/>
In the eighties, the theory of global warming—induced by human ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions—became fashionable.<br/>
<br/>
What really ignited this intellectual, social, and political trend was the discovery that billions of public funds could be funneled into ‘renewable energy’ industries through the mechanism of subsidies and tax credits.<br/>
<br/>
This morning I stumbled across a notable investigative report titled Secret Partnership Fueling Climate Hawk Journalism.<br/>
<br/>
Note that many of the foundations that are key players in Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex are also key players in the Climate-Industrial Complex.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/foundations-who-channel-public-funds-into-renewable-energy/">https://principia-scientific.com/foundations-who-channel-public-funds-into-renewable-energy/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Proposed Climate Reporting Rule Is Foolish and Outside of SEC’s Mission, Study Shows</b><br/>
<br/>
A new study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) finds the climate disclosure rule being finalized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) “exceeds the commission’s statutory authority, undermines its existing disclosure-based framework, and greatly increases costs and work-hour burdens for companies subject to the mandate.”<br/>
<br/>
When the SEC first broached the possibility of such a rule in 2022, I offered an official comment. I wrote, in part,<br/>
<br/>
The SEC’s proposed climate accounting and disclosure rules fall well outside its legal mission to protect investors from fraud and the markets from insider trading and manipulation.<br/>
<br/>
The factors likely to materially affect the success or failure of publicly traded companies are best known to the officers and managers of the firms and funds themselves, not the SEC, other regulatory agencies, politicians, or self-appointed stakeholders, including climate activists, not actively involved in the relevant business.<br/>
<br/>
The effects of climate change 20, 30, 50, or 100 years from now are unknown and unknowable. …<br/>
<br/>
The SECs proposed rules would require publicly traded companies to track and report on the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from their own operations and those of companies in their supply chain and the electric utilities that supply them power. In addition, companies would have to determine and report on how climate change is affecting their businesses now, how it is likely to affect them in the future, and what they are doing in response, including steps they are taking to reduce non-toxic greenhouse gas emissions.<br/>
<br/>
These rules would take hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of dollars away from businesses core operations, to carry out the SECs mandate to predict future climate to account for its fiscal effect on business operations, and act as their brothers’ keepers by tracking their power companies and suppliers’ emissions as well as their own.<br/>
<br/>
The SEC does not possess the statutory power to deputize or empower officers of publicly traded corporations to act as agents of the state to seek information from other companies under its regulatory control, much less from individuals or companies not under its regulatory purview.<br/>
<br/>
CEI Research Fellow Stone Washington’s analysis confirms my own and goes beyond it to detail the myriad failings of the rule. Taken together, these flaws undermine any legitimate case the SEC might assert for its climate disclosure rule. CEI’s press release about the study states,<br/>
<br/>
Under the SEC’s proposed rule, companies must report how climate change risk factors influence their financial decisions, business, models, locations, and projects. Regulated companies will be required to capture and report data on their direct, indirect, and value-chain produced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.<br/>
<br/>
By capturing data from regulated companies’ value-chain—known in the rule as Scope 3 emissions (Scope 1 are direct emissions, Scope 2 are indirect emissions)—the rule would greatly expand the SEC’s regulatory reach, allowing it to demand information from a host of private entities that are not usually the target of the commission’s regulatory powers. The rule’s requirements would harm many non-regulated suppliers, including farmers, ranchers, and facility owners, simply because they do business with a registered company.<br/>
<br/>
[T]he climate disclosure rule’s Scope 3 mandate will compel unregulated private companies to turn over sensitive GHG emissions data to registered firm partners. This backdoor regulation will likely be deemed by a reviewing court to compel information that is financially immaterial.<br/>
<br/>
In his study, Washington says the proposed rule has all sorts of legal problems:<br/>
<br/>
The SEC’s current climate rule now seeks to radically redefine established standards of materiality. This defies the Supreme Court’s Northway decision, previous agency precedent, and the agency’s statutory authorization … [and] violates the nondelegation doctrine, specifically the “major questions doctrine.”<br/>
<br/>
In addition to the lack of appropriateness and legality of the rule, it is impractical. Washington estimates the rule will impose an additional $864,000 or more of annual disclosure costs for the average firm, with firms being forced “to hire lawyers, accountants, and ESG experts to contend with the rule’s estimated 39 million additional hours of paperwork.”<br/>
<br/>
Large companies can absorb such costs, but smaller ones will struggle. The rule will force them to increase their prices or divert scarce resources from their core operations. Either way, their operations will be made less competitive with those of larger firms. On top of all that, the SEC has requested an additional $101 million in funding from Congress to hire new ESG-focused staff—more deficit spending for President Biden’s all-of-government approach to fighting climate change.<br/>
<br/>
In a recent article on the SEC’s rule, I noted an additional problem:<br/>
<br/>
If a company reported in its public documents and to the SEC that it did not expect climate change to materially affect its operations, whether because its board did not consider climate change a serious threat based on real-world data, or because it had no way of anticipating the types of weather events that might occur in the future, where, or when, it would be honest. However, it is doubtful that such honesty of a conclusion on the part of a company would satisfy the SEC’s climate mandarins.<br/>
<br/>
Indeed, although the rule would do nothing to prevent climate change, because no single company or industry substantially impacts global warming, it would open regulated companies up to potential enforcement actions from the SEC and lawsuits from activists for “improper filing,” if the SEC isn’t satisfied with the filing or the anticipated impacts do not occur but other unforeseen impacts do occur that do materially affect the company’s profitability.<br/>
<br/>
What should we conclude about the SEC’s rule? Washington has an answer:<br/>
<br/>
In its current form, the SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule will lead to expanded red tape, huge compliance costs, lawsuits, and little meaningful disclosure. Thus, the SEC should reconsider implementing the rule … and focus on its statutory mission of collecting disclosures of financially relevant information.<br/>
<br/>
I wholeheartedly concur.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/02/climate-change-weekly-496-proposed-climate-reporting-rule-is-foolish-and-outside-of-secs-mission-study-shows/">https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/02/climate-change-weekly-496-proposed-climate-reporting-rule-is-foolish-and-outside-of-secs-mission-study-shows/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Australia is way off track on drive for new fuel standards</b><br/>
<br/>
Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen is not someone who allows the grass to grow under his feet, or under the industrial-sized solar panels he is so keen to promote, for that matter.<br/>
<br/>
Early this month, he announced the government’s intention to introduce a New Vehicle Efficiency Standard for Australia. At the time, he told us Australia and Russia are the only advanced economies in the world not to have such a policy.<br/>
<br/>
After the standard is implemented here, Russia will be on its own – something that’s not likely to worry the Russian government unduly. Bowen is targeting a start date of next year.<br/>
<br/>
As is the case with many policy settings, the devil is always in the detail. It’s not just about having or not having an efficiency standard; it’s also about the parameters of the policy, other related measures and timing. Bowen plans to accelerate the implementation of the standard here by insisting we catch up to the US by 2028. This is the first problem with Bowen’s announcement.<br/>
<br/>
How these schemes work is that an overall efficiency standard (typically set in terms of CO2 grams per kilometre) applies across a manufacturer’s entire fleet for sale. On average, the standard must be met, with some vehicles above the standard and others below. Credits are generated if the standard is more than met and these are tradable. For those who cannot meet the standard, these credits can be bought.<br/>
<br/>
The expectation is that manufactures will seek to impose higher prices on vehicles that are above the standard and lower prices for those below it.<br/>
<br/>
In other words, the standard induces price cross-subsidisation so the overall standard can be met and penalties won’t be payable. Electric vehicles are highly prized in this setting. But for those models of cars with above-standard efficiency, prices will inevitably rise.<br/>
<br/>
Now if you think this is suppressing consumer sovereignty, you wouldn’t be wrong. Instead of allowing car buyers to take into account fuel efficiency as well as other characteristics, this policy deliberately restricts consumer choice to meet the government’s target. Bear in mind here that the most popular vehicles in Australia – the Ford Ranger ute and the Toyota HiLux – will massively exceed the new standard. There is speculation of price increases of between $10,000 and $25,000 for some models.<br/>
<br/>
Bowen claims everyone will still be able to buy their preferred car; indeed he expects the choice of vehicles to expand even though Australia is known to be one of the best catered-for markets for right-hand-drive cars in the world.<br/>
<br/>
The fact that there is little demand for some very small, fuel-efficient vehicles – those that are common in Europe and the UK – is mainly due to their unsuitability for families as well as being underpowered for Australian conditions. Bear in mind here that in Europe and the UK, petrol/diesel is highly taxed. The high price of petrol/diesel has been a driving force for many years determining the kinds of cars these citizens purchase. And, of course, many of these countries are the size of a handkerchief compared with Australia.<br/>
<br/>
Using his department’s assumption-driven modelling, Bowen is predicting Australians stand to save about $1000 per vehicle per year by 2028. If that sounds unconvincing, it’s because it is. For starters, most people only buy new cars occasionally.<br/>
<br/>
There are also some large leaps of faith about the take-up of electric vehicles – the real heart of this new policy – and the fact that it should be cheaper to charge a vehicle at home and drive a certain distance compared with filling up an internal combustion engine vehicle. Recent data point to it now being more expensive to use paid-for fast chargers between Melbourne and Sydney than driving a petrol-fuelled car.<br/>
<br/>
(A complication that Bowen chooses to ignore about this policy is the fact that EVs use electricity generated still mainly from coal. The modelling doesn’t take into account this second-round effect.)<br/>
<br/>
Had his department been closely watching overseas developments, he would also have been aware of significant problems emerging in a number of countries in relation to vehicle emissions standards, particularly the US.<br/>
<br/>
Notwithstanding the extremely generous subsidies available to EV purchasers and the fact that a number of the car manufacturers have aggressively switched to EVs – think here Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen – EV sales have stalled. There are said to be row upon row of unsold EVs in dealers’ premises in the US and the dealers are now loudly complaining. The Biden administration is now considering watering down its emissions standards.<br/>
<br/>
It turns out early adopters were keen to buy EVs – many had another vehicle in their garage – but demand has since slowed. The combination of high purchase prices, costly insurance and poor resale values, as well as ongoing issues with charging, has contributed to this outcome. (In the UK, this trend is, unbelievably, being blamed on an article written by Rowan Atkinson.)<br/>
<br/>
Some of the car companies are now scrambling to change direction, with GM reintroducing a plug-in hybrid model to kickstart sales as well as deal with the efficiency standard. Toyota has emerged a winner in this race, with its chief always sceptical about rapid consumer acceptance of EVs. Toyota has been a substantial investor in hybrid technology and its hybrid vehicles have emerged as commercial winners in a number of countries.<br/>
<br/>
Another clear trend in the motoring world is the increasing dominance of Chinese car manufacturers, particularly in the EV space. Their factories are churning out reasonable quality cars at much lower prices than the car companies that have dominated world sales for decades. Volkswagen, in particular, is under pressure as its strategic tilt to EV production fails to meet commercial expectations. (The fact that Chinese vehicles are constructed using cheap coal-fired electricity is again something that policymakers such as Bowen chose to ignore.)<br/>
<br/>
So what is really driving Bowen’s decision to run with this new vehicle efficiency standard with its accelerated timetable? There are number of factors at work. The first is that some of the car companies and activists have been strongly pushing this standard. Volkswagen, which was caught up in a significant emissions misreporting incident, is very keen to see the new standard implemented.<br/>
<br/>
Secondly, Bowen now realises the government’s stated emissions reduction target of a 43 per cent cut by 2030 won’t be met with current policy settings and the delayed rollout of renewable energy and new transmission lines. He is seeking some quick abatement from road transport to get closer to the target.<br/>
<br/>
As for the conclusion that the policy will return $3 for every $1 spent, pull the other one. I can come up with an equally plausible set of assumptions that leads to a negative net return. When the government report makes the fatuous claim that “the projected impact of (car) emissions on Australian’s climate outlook cannot be ignored”, you know the bureaucrats are talking through their hat. (Hint: it’s about global emissions.)<br/>
<br/>
Bowen might also be well-advised to admit that Australians love their cars.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/chris-bowen-is-way-off-track-on-drive-for-new-fuel-standards/news-story/e169093204866a5e05b55e26ae5c6874">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/chris-bowen-is-way-off-track-on-drive-for-new-fuel-standards/news-story/e169093204866a5e05b55e26ae5c6874</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-5344307422610465232024-02-20T17:28:00.001+13:002024-02-20T17:28:45.862+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Eiffel power – France’s nuclear charge</b><br/>
<br/>
As a consistent supporter of nuclear energy, it is encouraging to see a new French energy bill reaffirming the country’s commitment to nuclear power as ‘energy sovereignty’.<br/>
<br/>
The draft bill omits setting targets for solar power, wind power, and other renewables, in favour of expanding ‘the sustainable choice of using nuclear energy as a competitive and carbon-free’ source of electricity.<br/>
<br/>
This development follows a new wave of support for nuclear energy at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai last year. France’s President Emmanuel Macron led the pledge which signed up 21 world leaders to ‘triple nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050’. After signing he cheered: ‘Nuclear energy is back!’<br/>
<br/>
Across the world, many countries are turning to atomic energy and rethinking their renewables targets.<br/>
<br/>
In July 2023, the Swedish Parliament dumped its 100 per cent renewable target in order to build new nuclear plants claiming it needs a stable and reliable energy source.<br/>
<br/>
South Africa, battling crippling energy blackouts, announced plans to add 2,500 megawatts of new nuclear generation within the next decade to resolve power shortages and secure long-term energy supply.<br/>
<br/>
South Korea have reversed their phase-out of nuclear power acknowledging its efficiency in a time of rapid electrification of industry and everyday life.<br/>
<br/>
Even after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, by 2015 the Japanese government had re-started the nuclear power industry with a target of reaching 20 per cent of the national electricity supply by 2030. Last year, Japan’s Cabinet approved the construction of new power plants and extended the lifespans of its existing reactors to 60 years.<br/>
<br/>
While some nations are phasing out nuclear in favour of renewables, their dependency on importing electricity is growing. After Germany shut down the country’s last three nuclear power plants in April 2023, they have found themselves relying on imports from both France and Belgium’s nuclear-integrated power grids.<br/>
<br/>
Nuclear energy remains a reliable, stable, and carbon-free energy source around the world, and Australia, as a world supplier of uranium, should embrace its energy opportunities too.<br/>
<br/>
There are 60 nuclear power reactors currently under construction around the world and a further 110 are planned. There are 440 operating in 33 countries and an additional 30 countries considering, planning, and commencing nuclear power programs.<br/>
<br/>
By contrast, Australia continues its Cold War reactionary approach, with outdated legislation blocking any true assessment of this alternative, internationally proven, carbon-free energy source.<br/>
<br/>
In November 2023, the Victorian Labor government and Labor-allied crossbenchers voted down a private member’s bill seeking to repeal the state’s 1983 prohibition on nuclear energy-related activity. During debate, Labor dismissed the ‘fantasy being peddled now by the nuclear industry that somehow we have got new technology’ and described those favouring nuclear as the solution to our energy transition as ‘charlatans’.<br/>
<br/>
If Labor can only resort to 40-year-old arguments and name-calling, they are clearly finding it difficult to come up with substantive reasons for their opposition.<br/>
<br/>
In 2020, the Legislative Council’s Environment and Planning Committee inquiry into nuclear prohibition found that no detailed business case could be made without the moratorium being lifted.<br/>
<br/>
The report found that ‘a number of submitters and witnesses have made the point that the necessary business case or firm proposals will not be attempted while a prohibition remains in place’. It concluded that ‘current estimates of the cost of nuclear energy in Australia are unreliable and accurately costing the full cost is not possible without a detailed business case being undertaken’.<br/>
<br/>
Despite the evidence that banning the debate on nuclear energy stops assessment of its cost and efficacy, Labor continues to bury their heads in the sand.<br/>
<br/>
We cannot forget Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, who put on a nationally embarrassing display at COP28 in Dubai.<br/>
<br/>
While he attracted widespread derision for his extended Acknowledgement of Country, which now encompasses all the indigenous peoples of the world, it is perhaps fortunate less attention was paid to the detail of what he said.<br/>
<br/>
Bowen claimed Australia was ‘within striking distance’ of the Albanese government’s target of a 43 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 while simultaneously tabling an ‘Annual Climate Change Statement’ in Parliament which showed Australian carbon emissions rose by 3.6 million tonnes the first six months of 2023.<br/>
<br/>
Bowen’s virtue signalling knows no bounds as he jetted in on a fossil-fuelled plane to the UAE, the world’s eighth largest fossil fuel exporter, where the COP28 unanimously agreed to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’.<br/>
<br/>
While leading nations provide a compelling and trailblazing example of how nuclear energy can provide safe, cheap, and carbon-free electricity, Labor’s ill-conceived excuses and dogmatic arguments now look embarrassingly outdated and parochial. The advent of Australian nuclear submarines should finally shatter them.<br/>
<br/>
A non-nuclear Net Zero is fantasy, and for the good of Australia, it’s high time the state and federal Labor parties recognised that fact.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/eiffel-power-frances-nuclear-charge/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/eiffel-power-frances-nuclear-charge/</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> UK: Decarbonisation is Labour’s next green policy disaster</b><br/>
<br/>
Keir Starmer isn’t even in Downing Street yet already his government-in-waiting is in danger of being defined by its £28 billion green spending pledge, just as Tony Blair’s administration was defined by ‘45 minutes’ – the claimed deployment time of Saddam Hussein’s fabled weapons of mass destruction.<br/>
<br/>
First, Starmer promised to spend that sum on green initiatives in every year of the next parliament. Then it was revised down to spending £28 billion in the last year of the next parliament. Last week he dropped the pledge and said instead that £4.7 billion a year would be spent on green investment.<br/>
<br/>
But in the melee a more rash policy has been overlooked: Labour’s pledge to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 – which brings the present government’s target forward by five years. This is one of the five great ‘missions’ laid out in the party’s pre-manifesto pitch, along with the creation of a state-owned company, Great British Energy, to achieve it. Not only will it save carbon emissions, Labour claims (without any evidence or published workings) but it will also save us an enormous amount of money, taking ‘up to £1,400 off the annual household bill and £53 billion off energy bills for businesses’ within six years. This is quite a boast, considering the average household pays £1,928 a year in energy bills.<br/>
<br/>
A large part of Labour’s decarbonisation plans are laid out in a document called ‘Make Britain a Clean Energy Superpower’. Labour says it wants to quadruple offshore wind and double onshore wind by 2030, as well as to triple solar capacity. But this is likely to be impossible, not least because the National Grid won’t be able to get hold of enough subsea cables to plug in the required number of extra offshore wind turbines. There are four suppliers of such cables in the world – all of them have full order books until 2030.<br/>
<br/>
Would Labour’s plan be doable even if it could get the required kit – and would it really save households money? Labour’s case is based on the idea that wind and solar energy are the cheapest forms of energy around. It repeats an often-quoted conceit that, at one point in 2022, ‘renewable energy was nine times cheaper than gas’ and asserts that it remains much cheaper.<br/>
<br/>
But the ‘nine times’ claim was never true. It was made by CarbonBrief, a green energy advocacy website. They arrived at the figure by taking the prices paid for gas power at the very peak of the market in the summer of 2022 – £446 per megawatt-hour – as European countries rushed to fill their gas storage facilities ready for winter, following the loss of Russian gas after the invasion of Ukraine. It then compared them with the long-term, guaranteed ‘strike prices’ offered to operators of wind and solar farms over a 15-year period. In an auction in 2022, wind and solar farms agreed to a strike price of £48 per megawatt–hour.<br/>
<br/>
It was like comparing the cost of a bus journey using a season ticket to that of hailing an Uber in rush hour. If you take the average price of gas power over the past 15 years, it is considerably less than wind or solar power.<br/>
<br/>
Since 2022, the economics have changed sharply again: the price of gas has come down, but the price of renewable energy has jumped. Last July, the Swedish energy company Vattenfall pulled out of a North Sea wind farm project, complaining that the strike price it had agreed to the previous year was no longer enough. When the government held another auction for wind and solar power two months later, setting a maximum strike price of £44 per megawatt-hour for offshore wind, it didn’t receive a single bid.<br/>
<br/>
The price of wind energy was on a downward trend while commodity prices were falling and interest rates were near zero (most of the costs come upfront, so these projects are especially reliant on cheap credit). That trend has now been firmly reversed. No one knows what wind will cost in 2030. It’s impossible to predict if commodity prices or interest rates will return to levels that make it the cheapest form of energy. Any claim to save consumers money is therefore spurious.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/decarbonisation-is-labours-next-green-policy-disaster/">https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/decarbonisation-is-labours-next-green-policy-disaster/</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The renewables bubble has burst</b><br/>
<br/>
It wasn’t so long ago that Orsted was being held up as an example of how oil and gas companies should handle the transition to clean energy. In 2009 the then-DONG (Danish Oil and Natural Gas) announced that it was going to turn around it business so that instead of earning 85 per cent of its money from oil and gas it was going to earn 85 per cent of it from renewables. It was an early mover in offshore wind – and, at least for some years, shareholders were richly rewarded. The share price marched upwards from around £19 in 2014 to a peak at £100 in early 2021. Increasing your money fivefold and saving the planet at the same time – you can hardly argue with that.<br/>
<br/>
The economics of building wind farms has changed<br/>
<br/>
Except that the bubble in renewables didn’t last. Fast forward three years and Orsted has wiped out almost all its share price gains of the past decade. In the third quarter of 2023 it managed to lose £2.5 billion as its revenues halved on the same period in 2022. This week it suspended its dividend and announced the loss of 800 jobs. It also lowered its target for renewable-generating capacity by 2030 from 50 gigawatts to 35-38 gigawatts. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies which were being battered by low wholesale prices up until 2021 have had a great couple of years. Suddenly, the divestment campaign which told us to bail out of soon-to-be ‘stranded assets’ and pile into wind and solar because they are the future looks a little poorly thought-out.<br/>
<br/>
It is fair to say that not every renewable energy company has done as badly as Orsted, which has run into particular problems in a now-cancelled project to build two wind farms off the coast of New Jersey. Depending on what contracts they have, existing wind and solar farms have either benefitted from high electricity prices in Europe or they have continued to make plodding but reliable index-linked earnings thanks to guaranteed ‘strike’ prices. But Orsted’s misfortunes do rather expose the claims – still being made by Labour and others – that wind and solar energy is incredibly cheap as well as clean. The biggest problem for wind and solar is that most of their lifetime costs come upfront, in the construction phase. That is an issue when the cost of steel and other raw materials are going up – and even more so when the near-zero interest rates on which the finances of these projects were based are no longer there.<br/>
<br/>
That the economics of building wind farms had changed was clear last July when Swedish firm Vattenfall withdrew from a North Sea project which it had won the right to build in a UK government auction just a year earlier. Next time the government held an auction, in September, there was not a single bid. In response, the government has since increased the maximum strike price on offer from £44 to £73 per MWh. That is still a little lower than the average wholesale price of electricity over the past year but 50 per cent above the average wholesale price in the decade up to 2020. Wind and solar energy can no longer claim to be cheap – and, barring a highly-unlikely return to near zero interest rates, making an Orsted-style switch to renewables is certainly not looking like a way for oil and gas giants to boost investment returns.<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-renewables-bubble-has-burst/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/the-renewables-bubble-has-burst/</a> ?<br/>
<br/>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Eating green ideology: official Australian diet advice to warn of climate impact</b><br/>
<br/>
The federal government’s official advice on diets will now incorporate the impact of certain foods on climate change, sparking outrage from farmers who fear it is driven by an “ideological agenda” against red meat.<br/>
<br/>
It could lead to consumers being told to reduce steak and lamb chop intakes in favour of alternatives like chicken, which some scientists say has a lower carbon footprint.<br/>
<br/>
Red meat producers are concerned that the move by the National Health and Medical Research Council to incorporate environmental sustainability into Australian Dietary Guidelines will be based on “misinformation” and present an incomplete picture about the industry’s effect on the environment. They have called for it to be scrapped.<br/>
<br/>
The statutory authority’s dietary guidelines expert committee says the change is based on “stakeholder feedback” and has already started setting up a sustainability working group to help its review of the 2013 guidelines, due by the end of 2026.<br/>
<br/>
Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop accused the NHMRC, which is responsible for funding medical research and providing health and nutrition recommendations to the government, of straying beyond its remit. “These developments are an overreach by the dietary guidelines expert committee that go well beyond the policy intent of the Australian Dietary Guidelines to provide recommendations on healthy foods and dietary patterns,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
“The red meat industry has a strong story about sustainability, so our concerns are not because we believe it’s a weakness but because it’s not the role of the dietary guidelines nor is it the expertise of the dietary guidelines expert committee. The nation’s dietary guidelines should be focused on promoting public health, preventing chronic diseases and ensuring that all Australian have access to accurate and reliable information about their basic nutritional requirements.”<br/>
<br/>
Sustainability was included in an appendix of the previous guidelines, but the expert committee says “sustainability messaging should be incorporated within the revised dietary guidelines, and not included as a separate section within the appendices”.<br/>
<br/>
Mr McKillop said expanding the scope of the dietary guidelines into other non-nutritional topics would undermine their purpose and the public’s confidence in them. “This is going to make clear and simple nutritional messaging even more difficult,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
RMAC will ask the NHMRC committee to reconsider the change to the guidelines. “If they refuse, we’ll be asking the federal government to intervene as it’s starting to look like the process is running off the rails,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
“The dietary guidelines review process must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to drive ideological agendas at the expense of the latest nutritional science.”<br/>
<br/>
The dietary guidelines expert committee has defined sustainable diets as being “accessible, affordable and equitable diets with low environmental impacts”.<br/>
<br/>
In a statement, the NHMRC said including sustainability followed a “stakeholder survey” in which one in three people surveyed listed it as a priority.<br/>
<br/>
“While the 2013 guidelines included messages about the environmental impact of food choices, the placement of the messages in an appendix has made them easy to overlook,” a spokesman said.<br/>
<br/>
“Stakeholder feedback suggests there is low awareness of their existence. The revision of the guidelines provides an opportunity to improve integration of messages about food sustainability into the guidelines.”<br/>
<br/>
The organisation rejected the suggestion that incorporating sustainability messaging would undermine public confidence.<br/>
<br/>
“Developing or updating NHMRC guidelines involves a thorough review of the evidence, methodological advice on the quality of these reviews, drafting of the guidelines, public consultation and independent expert review of the final guidelines,” the spokesman said.<br/>
<br/>
“The dietary guidelines expert committee advised that recommendations for dietary patterns and food groups should firstly consider health impacts in the Australian context, followed by consideration of sustainability and other contextual factors,” the spokesman said. “This is consistent with how sustainability has been incorporated into dietary guidelines in other countries.”<br/>
<br/>
Central Queensland cattle farmer Mark Davie said industry concerns were heightened by perceived misinformation about the health impacts and sustainability of red meat production permeating media, public policy and nutritional advice.<br/>
<br/>
Mr Davie, who chairs the Australian Beef Sustainability Framework, questioned how the NHMRC could measure one food source against another while still accounting for benefits to things like soil or biodiversity.<br/>
<br/>
Meat producers are concerned that an updated version could follow rhetoric from organisations like the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, which advocates for reduced livestock grazing.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/eating-green-ideology-official-diet-advice-to-warn-of-climate-impact/news-story/7deeaf36dea21fcc8a443e006312e42d">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/eating-green-ideology-official-diet-advice-to-warn-of-climate-impact/news-story/7deeaf36dea21fcc8a443e006312e42d</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-23143218099439997242024-02-19T18:43:00.003+13:002024-02-19T18:44:44.085+13:00<br><b> Biden Administration May Relax EPA Rules Driving Electric Vehicles: Report</b><br/>
<br/>
In recent years, the American car market has been pushed toward becoming a significantly more electric one by the Biden Administration's strict Environmental Protection Agency rules. Those car tailpipe emission rules are so strict that they could result in two-thirds of all new cars having emissions at all by 2032. But now, after months of pressure from automakers, dealers, labor unions and the other side of the political aisle, the White House may ease up on that plan—a move that will sure to draw the ire of EV proponents and anyone sounding the alarm over global warming.<br/>
<br/>
This report comes from the New York Times, citing three unnamed officials said to be familiar with the plan. The exact details of this plan are not known, except that a "sharp increase" in EV sales would not be required "until after 2030."<br/>
<br/>
The new EPA rules are expected to be finalized this spring, the Times reports.<br/>
<br/>
If so, the move could have profound effects on the future of the EV industry, America's ability to compete against a rising electric China, and a signature Biden policy achievement as he faces a tough reelection battle.<br/>
<br/>
From the Times:<br/>
<br/>
The E.P.A. designed the proposed regulations so that 67 percent of sales of new cars and light-duty trucks would be all-electric by 2032, up from 7.6 percent in 2023, a radical remaking of the American automobile market.<br/>
<br/>
That remains the goal. But as they finalize the regulations, administration officials are tweaking the plan to slow the pace at which auto manufacturers would need to comply, so that electric vehicle sales would increase more gradually through 2030 but then would have to sharply rise.<br/>
<br/>
The change in pacing is in response to automakers who say that more time is needed to build a national network of charging stations and to bring down the cost of electric vehicles, and to labor unions that want more time to try to unionize new electric car plants that are opening around the country, particularly in the South.<br/>
<br/>
Last year was a landmark one for EV sales, with all-electric cars making up 7.6% of the market and record sales from every brand. But the rate of EV adoption slowed down toward the end of the year, moving less quickly than the industry anticipated. The so-called "EV slowdown" is often overblown, but the transition has been hampered by combatant car dealers, a largely inadequate public charging network, intense political opposition and concerns about how the cars operate differently than gas-powered ones.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://insideevs.com/news/709077/biden-epa-rollback-nyt/">https://insideevs.com/news/709077/biden-epa-rollback-nyt/</a>
</p>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Labor union urges Scottish Labour Party to oppose heat pumps and pursue hydrogen</b><br/>
<br/>
Labour delegates attending its [Scottish] party conference this week will be urged to support the Scottish Government turning its back on Patrick Harvie’s heat pumps strategy and instead press ahead with using hydrogen to heat homes.<br/>
<br/>
Bosses at the GMB union, who have been publicly hostile to the Scottish Government’s strategy to clean up how buildings are heated, are calling on Scottish Labour to oppose heat pumps and other renewable heating systems being pursued by [Scottish minister] Mr Harvie, and instead turn attention to hydrogen – believing it will help safeguard jobs.<br/>
<br/>
But Mr Harvie has told The Herald that hydrogen “is not expected to play a central role in heating buildings”.<br/>
<br/>
An independent study commissioned and published by WWF Scotland last year concluded that using hydrogen for heating was a “distraction” and called for the focus to be put on other methods, primarily heat pumps. […]<br/>
<br/>
Bosses from the GMB union, which represents energy workers in Scotland, will table a motion at Scottish Labour conference on Friday, calling for more focus to be put on hydrogen for heating.<br/>
<br/>
The motion to be tabled at Scottish Labour’s conference in Glasgow this weekend, seen by The Herald, will back “deep concern” over the Scottish Government’s heat in buildings plans, claiming the strategy “proposes banning gas boilers and forcing onto households untested systems such as heat pumps which come with higher installation and running costs”.<br/>
<br/>
It adds that “the existing, vast and skilled gas workforce and 280,000km gas network” could be “be reskilled and repurposed to provide low and no-carbon hydrogen to homes”.<br/>
<br/>
Mr Harvie, the Scottish Government’s Zero Carbon Buildings Minister, has launched a consultation that will phase out fossil fuel gas boilers by 2045, when Scotland has pledged to become net zero.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24118985.labour-urged-back-harvie-ditching-heat-pumps-pursue-hydrogen/?mc_cid=6064666b46&mc_eid=cc88839e92">https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24118985.labour-urged-back-harvie-ditching-heat-pumps-pursue-hydrogen/?mc_cid=6064666b46&mc_eid=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Two windfarms share £80 million just to switch off</b><br/>
<br/>
The cost to consumers of so-called windfarm constraint payments is rising quickly.<br/>
<br/>
Regular readers will know that I have long been concerned over the extraordinary level of payments to windfarms to switch off. These so-called ‘constraint payments’ are deemed necessary when the wires in the transmission grid have inadequate capacity to get a generator’s power to market. When that happens, the windfarm (and it is always a windfarm) is paid to switch off, and a gas-fired power station is paid to switch on so that the end user of the electricity is not left short.<br/>
<br/>
This is particularly a problem for windfarms in Scottish waters, because there is relatively little transmission capacity running across the border to England, where most of the power users are found. In 2022, I noted that the offshore windfarm called Moray East had spent 25% of the previous year switched off. The suspicion is that there may be perverse incentives for developers to build windfarms in Scotland precisely so they receive constraint payments.<br/>
<br/>
With a large new offshore windfarm called Seagreen coming on stream in 2023, I was interested to see how things had developed. The data, taken from the Renewable Energy Foundation, is revealing.<br/>
<br/>
Figure 1 shows that the total payments to windfarms has risen to £303 million, off a constrained volume of 4.3 terawatt hours. That’s roughly four days’ electricity demand thrown away entirely.<br/>
<br/>
And if we break down the 2023 bill, we can see that once again it is the canny Scots who are the big beneficiaries (Figure 2), with Moray East getting an extraordinary £43 million, and Seagreen (as expected) not far behind at £39 million.<br/>
<br/>
Moray East’s constrained volume is 590 GWh, which will represent something like 20% of its output. Seagreen’s is 759 GWh, which will be somewhat higher.<br/>
<br/>
Interestingly, payments to Moray East’s neighbour, Beatrice, have fallen away sharply, from £33 million in 2022 to just £9 million in 2023. I don’t know why this is.<br/>
<br/>
In summary then, the rip-off continues, and indeed is getting worse.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/two-windfarms-share-80-million-of-payments-to-switch-off?mc_cid=6064666b46&mc_eid=cc88839e92">https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/two-windfarms-share-80-million-of-payments-to-switch-off?mc_cid=6064666b46&mc_eid=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
*************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> An ESG Asset Manager Exodus</b><br/>
<br/>
Has the tide turned on environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing? It appears so. JPMorgan Asset Management, BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors on Thursday retreated from the Climate Action 100+ investor compact because they don’t want the political and legal liability.<br/>
<br/>
Climate Action 100+ describes itself as the “largest ever global investor engagement initiative on climate change.” Its 700 or so institutional investor members manage more than $68 trillion in assets (before Thursday’s exits). Their goal is to force companies to zero out CO2 emissions by 2050.<br/>
<br/>
Members are supposed to “engage” 170 “focus companies” such as Boing, Home Depot and American Airlines—that is, threaten to vote against non-compliant corporate directors and back shareholder resolutions that pressure management. Their campaign has had great success with 75% of targeted companies committing to “net zero.”<br/>
<br/>
But the climate left is never content. Last June the alliance impelled its members to publish information on their “engagements” and to explain how and why they voted on shareholder resolutions flagged by the outfit. The point was to embarrass asset managers that climate scolds accuse of being insufficiently committed to the cause.<br/>
<br/>
Asset managers have been walking a fine legal line. GOP Attorneys General in 2022 warned that they might be violating their fiduciary obligations and antitrust laws. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan in December subpoenaed BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors for documents and communications related to their involvement in “collusive” agreements.<br/>
<br/>
The climate alliance’s new rules would compound the legal and political jeopardy. In its withdrawal announcement, State Street said its rules “are not consistent with our independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement.” BlackRock said the rules “would raise legal considerations.”<br/>
<br/>
All true. But perhaps their customers have also begun to realize that ESG and net-zero mandates are political crusades that accomplish little except politicizing investment. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink noted correctly last year that ESG has been “entirely weaponised.” But asset managers should have known that bowing to the left would invite pushback from the right.<br/>
<br/>
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander lambasted the trio on Thursday for “caving to climate deniers.” “We are in the process of reviewing how well our managers are aligned in that approach and will consider our options for the management of our public market investments,” he warned.<br/>
<br/>
What does it say when the climate left believes it can achieve its goals only by intimidation and coercion?<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-action-100-exodus-j-p-morgan-state-street-blackrock-esg-investing-b78d2a06">https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-action-100-exodus-j-p-morgan-state-street-blackrock-esg-investing-b78d2a06</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-82412429703901972992024-02-18T14:07:00.002+13:002024-02-18T14:07:45.220+13:00<br><br/>
<b> Conceptual error in climate change analysis</b><br/>
<br/>
It is often said that the ‘science is in on climate change’. Is it? We should always adhere to the principle of the ‘working hypothesis’ and have an open mind on scientific questions no matter how well-recognised the researchers are. In the study of science, there is always the chance new information can come along to cause a rethink.<br/>
<br/>
A common error in problem-solving and policy development is to confuse a technical strategy for a desired client outcome. Our Climate Change Minister could be accused of this. Reducing emissions is a ‘strategy’, not the fundamental desired client outcome. With the mission ‘to reduce carbon emissions’ by increasing renewable energy, the way to assess performance is to concentrate on measuring emission reduction, and then to follow this up with how quickly the renewables are built and their cost (wind farms, solar panels, transmission lines).<br/>
<br/>
Instead of the current strategy-driven mission, a fundamental client outcome statement would be: ‘To protect against, and where possible, prevent damage from extreme off-trend fluctuations in climate.’ How would you go about managing your program using this mission statement?<br/>
<br/>
First, you gather accurate temperature, rainfall, and weather measurements. They are the valid and fundamental ‘outcome’ measures – not data on CO2 emissions. If there is an undeniable and dangerous increase in temperature and rainfall, more cyclones, and a clear and unabated rise in sea level, then the possible cause must be thoroughly identified. Depending on the answer, you would adopt appropriate mitigation strategies, or strategies that adapt to weather patterns and temperature levels.<br/>
<br/>
Another principle of problem-solving is to map out the total picture and not be driven by ideology. The Climate Change Minister should consider possible causes other than human-induced emissions. It was announced in April 2023 that coronal cones 20 times larger than Earth have been discovered and may cause a massive outburst of energy from the sun. What could be the implications for our planet? Ask solar physicists.<br/>
<br/>
Chief scientist in applied helio-physics at John Hopkins, Ian Cohen, has suggested that solar storms could take out satellites, cut power and shut down the internet. In 1972 a solar storm caused 4,000 magnetically sensitive mines in water off Vietnam to detonate. Earth is said to be entering a period of peak activity as part of an eleven-year cycle. It is suggested this potentially could be more violent than the solar cycles of the past three decades. Now that would be something for climate scientists to really worry about…<br/>
<br/>
With respect to the world’s temperature, there are several sources that claim to present the precise figure. One says the 2023 average global temperature was 1.45c above the 1950-90 average. Another says since 1880, Earth’s temperature has increased by 0.08c. Another says during the last 50 years the increase is 0.13c. To the unscientific mind, these temperatures do not appear to be verging on catastrophic boiling us all to death. As of 2024, data on natural changes in temperature, rainfall, and sea level do not show any statistically significant difference to historical records.<br/>
<br/>
There are respected scientists who question the current climate orthodoxy. Physicist Prof. William Happer of Princeton University and Prof. Richard Lindzen, Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT have argued science demonstrates there is no climate-related risk caused by fossil fuels and CO2, and that 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradicts the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They state reliable scientific theories come from validating theoretical predictions with observations, not consensus, peer review, government opinion, or manipulated data.<br/>
<br/>
In July 2023, the International Monetary Fund cancelled a planned talk on climate change by 2022 Nobel physicist John Clauser when they learned he had stated publicly:<br/>
<br/>
‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events. The OPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation.’<br/>
<br/>
Clauser pointed out that the US Environmental Protection Authority has charts that show a heatwave Index going back to 1895, showing heatwaves were more common before the 1960s and especially in the 1930s.<br/>
<br/>
In addition to these physicists, there are eminent Australian geologists who challenge the CO2 cause theory. Emeritus Prof. Ian Pilmer of the University of Melbourne, and Prof. Michael Asten of Monash University, have argued that throughout the history of the planet, there have been long periods of major change in climate due to natural forces. This would indicate recent human-based emissions may not be the important factor that we have been led to believe.<br/>
<br/>
With respect to measuring emissions (nitrous oxide and methane), there is an expectation that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would have collected accurate data. Then one reads an independent 2023 report of these greenhouse gas emissions from farm dams in Australia’s irrigation regions, that the measurements had been massively over-estimated by the IPCC by 4 to 5 per cent.<br/>
<br/>
To add further confusion to the issue, a 2023 research paper submitted to the European Physical Journal Plus claimed climate science has become ‘highly politicised’. Italian scientists analysed long-term data on heat, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and ecosystem productivity, and found no clear trend of extreme events. The statements by these scientists would appear worthy of examination. Unfortunately, comments to the publisher by other climate scientists caused the withdrawal of the article.<br/>
<br/>
If activists are correct, and if temperatures and rainfall start to show a significant increase without any influence from natural factors such as the sun or outer atmospheric disturbances, the second ‘outcome’ mission opens your mind to several strategies that could be compared against each other on cost and effectiveness – renewables, outer space satellites capturing solar energy and transmitting to Earth, small nuclear, carbon capture, examine possibility of amalgamating carbon and turning it into a useful product, lower emission coal-fired power stations, hydro, hydrogen fuel cells, a scientific search for a predator for carbon other than trees (or the planting of more trees), and so on.<br/>
<br/>
A valid client ‘outcome’ statement encourages you not to jump to a conclusion in the initial stages of critical thinking about the cause of any global warming. If you make a mistake at that point, there are significant productivity implications. Governments could waste a significant amount of money (a catastrophic amount) on a less than optimum strategy. Rather than relying almost entirely on climate scientists who concentrate on carbon emissions, a politician with a mind focused on validity could bring together an inter-disciplinary team – climate scientists, nuclear physicists, solar physicists, atmospheric physicists, examine the moon’s behaviour, plant technologists, oceanographers, geologists, volcanologists, botanists, bushfire specialists and so on. Has any national government followed this approach? Has any Minister for Energy, in any country, expanded their vision beyond their own narrow ideology is a potential danger to their country…?<br/>
<br/>
There are very obvious reasons why some politicians and many rich investors in renewable energy would oppose a serious questioning of the renewable strategy and switching to nuclear instead. If small nuclear was introduced – as is being done in many countries – it would make current renewable energy strategies redundant. That would mean all the billions of dollars spent on wind and solar would have been a waste of money. We wouldn’t need them. Admitting that would be far too embarrassing for any ideological politician and far too financially damaging to any rich wind farm investor obtaining government grants.<br/>
<br/>
If the Sun is found to be the fundamental cause of the problem (variations in energy output, massive infrequent solar flares, and/or variations in distance between Earth and Sun), or if there is a slight tilting of the Earth on its axis, or the Moon changes position, or even disturbance further out in our solar system, you would evaluate adaptation strategies.<br/>
<br/>
It seemed reasonable for some people to assume the vast flooding in 2022 could be attributed to human-induced climate change. There is however, a different possibility … nature. Environment analyst Graham Lloyd explained.<br/>
<br/>
‘The meteorological processes at play are well understood. Three consecutive La Nina weather patterns have left the eastern seaboard soaked and prone to flooding. Triple La Ninas have happened four times in the Bureau of Meteorology’s 120-year record … The Southern Annular Mode is a climate driver that can influence rainfall and temperature. Although wet, the latest BoM figures show that 2022 was the ninth wettest year on record (not the wettest).’<br/>
<br/>
When the above material, stressing the need to examine the total picture in any critical thinking, was shown to a high school Principal, to a high school science teacher and to an environmental engineer, they were all surprised and quite critical that one would want to show this to students. Annoyed actually. One was emphatic…<br/>
<br/>
‘Why waste the students’ time having them look at irrelevant issues? We KNOW what the problem is. It is CO2 emissions. And we KNOW what the solution is. It is 100 per cent renewables.’<br/>
<br/>
My answer to them was:<br/>
<br/>
‘The difference between you and me, is that you want to tell the students WHAT to think. I want to teach them HOW to think. I want them to understand insightful thinking. Not to be indoctrinated’.<br/>
<br/>
You can be the judge as to who is on the right track.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/conceptual-error-in-climate-change-analysis/">https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/02/conceptual-error-in-climate-change-analysis/</a>
</p>
*******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> JPMorgan Chase, BlackRock drop out of massive UN climate alliance in stunning move</b><br/>
<br/>
JPMorgan Chase and institutional investors BlackRock and State Street Global Advisors (SSGA) on Thursday announced that they are quitting or, in the case of BlackRock, substantially scaling back involvement in a massive United Nations climate alliance formed to combat global warming through corporate sustainability agreements.<br/>
<br/>
In a statement, the New York-based JPMorgan Chase explained that it would exit the so-called Climate Action 100+ investor group because of the expansion of its in-house sustainability team and the establishment of its climate risk framework in recent years. BlackRock and State Street, which both manage trillions of dollars in assets, said the alliance's climate initiatives had gone too far, expressing concern about potential legal issues as well.<br/>
<br/>
The stunning announcements come as the largest financial institutions in the U.S. and worldwide face an onslaught of pressure from consumer advocates and Republican states over their environmental, social and governance (ESG) priorities.<br/>
<br/>
"The firm has built a team of 40 dedicated sustainable investing professionals, including investment stewardship specialists who also leverage one of the largest buy side research teams in the industry," the bank said in a statement shared with FOX Business. "Given these strengths and the evolution of its own stewardship capabilities, JPMAM (JP Morgan Asset Management) has determined that it will no longer participate in Climate Action 100+ engagements."<br/>
<br/>
BlackRock, meanwhile, withdrew its U.S. business from Climate Action 100+, shifting involvement in the alliance to BlackRock's smaller international entity where a majority of clients are pursuing decarbonization goals, the Financial Times first reported Thursday. A spokesperson for BlackRock confirmed to FOX Business that the move had been made in recent weeks.<br/>
<br/>
And State Street said its exit from the alliance was made because Climate Action 100+'s "phase 2" commitments conflicted with the firm's internal investing policies.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/jpmorgan-chase-drops-out-of-massive-un-climate-alliance-in-stunning-move">https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/jpmorgan-chase-drops-out-of-massive-un-climate-alliance-in-stunning-move</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Meta, Amazon and Google shed 3,000 do-goody ESG staff as backlash over 'woke capitalism' intensifies</b><br/>
<br/>
Meta, Amazon, Google, and other US firms are shedding staff with environmental, social and governance roles (ESG), research shows, in the latest sign of the backlash against what critics deride as 'woke capitalism.'<br/>
<br/>
More people left ESG jobs than started them for much of 2023, marking the reversal of a once-mushrooming sector, according to Live Data Technologies, which tracks the employment market.<br/>
<br/>
US firms saw 3,071 ESG departures in December 2023, compared with 2,897 arrivals — a net loss of 174 roles, says the review of more than 360,000 US-based ESG professionals that was published in The Wall Street Journal.<br/>
<br/>
Meta Platforms, Amazon, and Google had the largest ESG job outflows among US firms last year, the data show. The pattern was visible across other technology, financial-services and consulting firms.<br/>
<br/>
Those firms have not commented on the exodus.<br/>
<br/>
'2023 saw a real cooling in chatter around ESG and in some quarters, quite a pronounced attack on what ESG was about,' Joe Dubbin, managing director at Cripps Leadership Advisors, a recruitment firm, told the Journal.<br/>
<br/>
'It has certainly filtered through into the hiring requirements that we've been tasked to go do.'<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13083119/Meta-Amazon-Google-shed-staff-ESG-backlash-woke-capitalism.html?mc_cid=6064666b46">https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13083119/Meta-Amazon-Google-shed-staff-ESG-backlash-woke-capitalism.html?mc_cid=6064666b46</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> European Central Bank tells staff: If you’re not green, you’re not wanted</b><br/>
<br/>
A top European Central Bank official stunned employees by saying people who don’t buy into the institution’s green objectives aren’t welcome to work there.<br/>
<br/>
Frank Elderson, one of six members of the ECB’s executive board, told an internal meeting: “I don’t want these people anymore.”<br/>
<br/>
His comments, verified by POLITICO, have sparked outrage among ECB staff, who described them as “authoritarian” and said they showed a free and open discussion about climate change ― and the role the bank should play in tackling it ― was no longer possible at the Frankfurt-based organization.<br/>
<br/>
At the meeting earlier this month, Elderson asked employees ― some in person, some online ― “Why would we want to hire people who we have to reprogram? Because they came from the best universities, but they still don’t know how to spell the word ‘climate.’<br/>
<br/>
Anyone already working at the ECB should be retrained, Elderson added. He insisted he was "not threatening anyone," and did not expand on what he meant by being able to "spell" climate.<br/>
<br/>
The Dutchman’s remarks have broader significance because the ECB is embroiled in a debate ― internally and among Europe’s politicians ― over how much its policies should steer toward making the economy "greener," or whether it should just stick to its main goal of keeping eurozone prices stable.<br/>
<br/>
Diversity and inclusion<br/>
<br/>
The comments drew an angry reaction from employees who took to a private chatroom for bank staff. Their responses were also seen by POLITICO.<br/>
<br/>
Elderson, who is the bank’s climate czar and vice-chair of its supervisory arm, “killed the ideal of diversity and inclusion in one sentence,” said one member of staff. “I thought these underpinned the culture of this institution.” They described the Dutchman’s comments as “authoritarian.”<br/>
<br/>
Others warned his comments risked fostering “groupthink,” which would impair the ECB’s decision-making.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/ecb-tells-staff-if-youre-not-green-youre-not-wanted/?mc_cid=6064666b46">https://www.politico.eu/article/ecb-tells-staff-if-youre-not-green-youre-not-wanted/?mc_cid=6064666b46</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-1080281006741204092024-02-15T20:49:00.001+13:002024-02-15T20:49:12.613+13:00<br><br/>
<b> What Should We Think Of Michael Mann’s Defamation Trial ‘Win’?</b><br/>
<br/>
Written by Roger Pielke Jr.<br/>
<br/>
I was a witness in the case and testified on Tuesday.2 Here, I’ll offer my thoughts on the case and some personal reflections on my experience<br/>
<br/>
Mann’s case alleged that he was defamed by statements made by the bloggers more than a decade ago, which harmed his reputation and career (I won’t rehash the details here, but you can get a full accounting of the trial at this comprehensive podcast).3<br/>
<br/>
The defense built their case around making three points to the jury.<br/>
<br/>
One was to bring in experts to testify that Mann’s methods in producing the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph were manipulative, and thus critics of the Hockey Stick were factually correct in saying so.<br/>
<br/>
The second point was to demonstrate that the debate over climate at the time the blog posts were written was intense and vitriolic, with Mann saying things about others that were worse than what the defendants said about him.4<br/>
<br/>
Finally, the defense argued that Mann hardly put on a case — he provided no evidence or witnesses supporting his claims of damage to his reputation or career.<br/>
<br/>
In contrast, the prosecution was — in the words of the court, “disjointed” — and was reprimanded on multiple occasions by the judge, most notably for knowingly providing false information to the jury on alleged damages suffered by Mann.5<br/>
<br/>
When I was cross-examined, Mann’s lawyer had considerable trouble getting basic facts right like timelines and who said what.6<br/>
<br/>
Even so, in a trial that most neutral observers would surely see as favoring the arguments of the defense, Mann walked away with a resounding, comprehensive victory.7 How did that happen?<br/>
<br/>
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.<br/>
<br/>
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand.<br/>
<br/>
As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.<br/>
<br/>
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from ‘climate deniers’.<br/>
<br/>
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to ‘right-wing science deniers’ and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.<br/>
<br/>
Here is how an advocacy group called “DeSmog” accurately reported these dynamics:<br/>
<br/>
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny.<br/>
<br/>
In closing arguments, Mann’s lawyer John Williams compared the climate deniers in this case to election deniers overall. “Why do Trumpers continue to deny that he won the election?” he asked the jury. “Because they truly believe what they say or because they want to further their agenda?”<br/>
<br/>
He asked the jury to consider the same question about Steyn and Simberg: Did they believe what they wrote was the truth, or did they just want to push their agenda? …<br/>
<br/>
“Michael Mann is tired of being attacked,” Williams told the jury. “You have the opportunity to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in a similar way” to Simberg and Steyn.<br/>
<br/>
An underlying current throughout this trial has been that ‘climate denialism’, like what the two defendants practice, isn’t really about the science. It’s more about politics and policy that drives organizations and individuals to “attack the science and confuse the public . . .<br/>
<br/>
This framing — ‘climate deniers’ versus climate science — has also characterized mainstream media coverage.<br/>
<br/>
For instance, The Washington Post announced, on the day the case went to the jury, that this case was part of a “mounting campaign” against “right-wing trolls” (below).<br/>
<br/>
Prominent climate scientist or right-wing trolls? Which side are you on?<br/>
<br/>
The case was formally about defamation, but in reality, it was not at all about defamation.<br/>
<br/>
As Michael Mann stated after the verdict, the case was really about politics and ideology:<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/what-should-we-think-of-michael-manns-defamation-trial-win/">https://principia-scientific.com/what-should-we-think-of-michael-manns-defamation-trial-win/</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Boiling Point Reached On Green Policies</b><br/>
<br/>
Something rather amazing is happening across Western Europe, although American media outlets would like to pretend that nothing is happening.<br/>
<br/>
The sea change is that ordinary people are pushing back against green policies that will destroy farming (and also destroy the food supply) and against the endless immigration that’s intended to wipe out Europe’s ancient populations in favor of entirely new populations from the Muslim world and Africa (both Muslim and non-Muslim regions).<br/>
<br/>
The farmer protests began last year in the Netherlands when the government announced that it intended to cut livestock farming by 30 percent to prevent ‘greenhouse gases’.<br/>
<br/>
It was a pure “you vill eat ze bugs” moment, and the farmers protested vehemently.<br/>
<br/>
Indeed, they protested uber-conservative Geert Wilders right into a parliamentary majority, although the wacky parliamentary system means he hasn’t been able to form a coalition to lead the government.<br/>
<br/>
Because those policies are not limited to the Netherlands but have spread across Europe (where post-WWII socialism provided a ready landing pad for environmental madness), the same farmer protests are now in other European nations.<br/>
<br/>
Again, no farmers means no food, except for the delightful Stone Age diet of bugs, scavenged fruits and vegetables, and gleaned grains.<br/>
<br/>
Our famine-free era will be just a short interlude in the long history of human starvation.<br/>
<br/>
As a reminder, when Stalin deliberately forced a famine on the Ukrainian people during the 1930s, the saying was that an orphan was a child whose parents died before they could eat him.<br/>
<br/>
That’s the world leftists are pushing.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/boiling-point-reached-on-green-policies/">https://principia-scientific.com/boiling-point-reached-on-green-policies/</a>
</p>
************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Biden’s Latest Climate Regs Hammer Manufacturing</b><br/>
<br/>
The Biden administration finalized regulations severely tightening restrictions on fine particulate matter that the manufacturing and energy sectors are legally allowed to emit, an action that industry said would have devastating economic consequences.<br/>
<br/>
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled the regulations Wednesday morning in a joint announcement with environmental activists, saying limiting particulate matter known as PM2.5 or soot would have health benefits for Americans nationwide.<br/>
<br/>
The rulemaking lowers the annual PM2.5 standard from a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter to a level of nine micrograms per cubic meter.<br/>
<br/>
“Today’s action is a critical step forward that will better protect workers, families, and communities from the dangerous and costly impacts of fine particle pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told reporters in a call. “The science is clear. Soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution and is linked to a range of serious and potentially deadly illnesses, including asthma and heart attacks.”<br/>
<br/>
“The stronger standard is designed to ensure clear, routine pathways for industry to continue to upgrade and build while maintaining cleaner, healthier air,” Regan continued. “We know that cleaner air and a strong and bustling economy go hand in hand.”<br/>
<br/>
According to the EPA, the regulations will prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays while yielding up to $46 billion in net health benefits by 2032. …snip…<br/>
<br/>
However, industry associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) have warned of the potentially wide-ranging impacts of more restrictive particulate matter restrictions.<br/>
<br/>
In a September letter to Regan, those groups and 30 other industry associations said the regulations could lead to onerous permitting requirements that would “freeze manufacturing and supply chain investments.”<br/>
<br/>
They also pointed to a May 2023 study conducted by Oxford Economics and commissioned by NAM that concluded more restrictive PM2.5 regulations would threaten between $162.4 and $197.4 billion of economic activity while putting 852,100 to 973,900 current jobs at risk.<br/>
<br/>
“Tightening the NAAQS PM2.5 standard will grind permits to a halt for a large portion of our country,” Marty Durbin, the senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Wednesday. “EPA’s new rule is expected to put 569 counties out of compliance and push many others close to the limit, which threatens economic growth.”<br/>
<br/>
“Compliance with the new standard will be very difficult because 84 percent of emissions now come from non-industrial sources like wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control,” he continued. “While EPA states there are exemptions for wildfires, 70 percent of those requests haven’t been granted in the past, and the process for seeking one is time-consuming and difficult for states to manage.”<br/>
<br/>
Durbin added that the EPA should have maintained the previous standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter and focused its attention instead on reducing non-industrial emissions. The regulations, he said, punish counties and the private sector “for situations largely out of their control.”<br/>
<br/>
The regulations, meanwhile, will make the U.S. PM2.5 standards among the world’s most burdensome.<br/>
<br/>
While Australia and Canada have annual standards lower than nine micrograms per cubic meter, Japan has a standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, and the U.K. and European Union both have a standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter.<br/>
<br/>
China and India have annual standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter or greater.<br/>
<br/>
“Protecting public health and the environment is a top priority for our industry, and America has seen significant air quality improvements and reduced emissions over the past decades under the existing EPA standards,” said API Vice President of Downstream Policy Will Hupman.<br/>
<br/>
“Yet, today’s announcement is the latest in a growing list of short-sighted policy actions that have no scientific basis and prioritize foreign energy and manufacturing from unstable regions of the world over American jobs, manufacturing, and national security,” Hupman continued. “As we review the final standard, we will consider all our options.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://principia-scientific.com/bidens-latest-climate-regs-hammer-manufacturing/">https://principia-scientific.com/bidens-latest-climate-regs-hammer-manufacturing/</a>
</p>
*******************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Absurd: New Zealand courts can now decide on climate change</b><br/>
<br/>
The World Justice Project ranks New Zealand 7th out of 142 countries on its ‘Rule of Law Index’, narrowly ahead of Australia’s 13th place. However, Australia still has hope – if only because of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.<br/>
<br/>
The case is easily told. In 2019 Mike Smith, an indigenous activist fighting climate change, filed a lawsuit against seven large New Zealand companies – including Fonterra and Z Energy – for their carbon emissions. Smith claims that they are causing him harm.<br/>
<br/>
The case falls under what lawyers call ‘tort law’. It is an ancient branch of the common law dealing with making good damage unlawfully caused to one person by another.<br/>
<br/>
In his case, Smith argued that the seven companies were responsible for the torts of ‘public nuisance’, ‘negligence’ and a hitherto unknown tort of ‘damage to the climate system’.<br/>
<br/>
Armed with these claims, and supported by pressure group Lawyers for Climate Action, Smith went to court. The defendants promptly applied to strike his claims out. In legal parlance, such a ‘strike out’ means that the court considers a claim too frivolous to be taken seriously.<br/>
<br/>
In the first instance, the High Court struck out Smith’s public nuisance and negligence claims. However, the High Court allowed Smith to take his damage to the climate system forward, not least to see whether that fabled new tort really exists.<br/>
<br/>
The Court of Appeal did not think so. It threw out Smith’s whole case.<br/>
<br/>
This is where Smith’s case would have ended, had it not been for the New Zealand Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. A couple of years ago, it permitted Smith to argue his case.<br/>
<br/>
Last week, we finally learned the verdict. The Supreme Court not only allowed Smith to have his claim of damage to the climate system heard in the lower court. It did so on all three alleged torts.<br/>
<br/>
You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the problems with New Zealand’s top judges’ decision last week. But perhaps one must be a lawyer to come up with it.<br/>
<br/>
To be clear, the Supreme Court did not decide that Smith will eventually win his case. But it does mean that the court believes that he might.<br/>
<br/>
Still, is this a logical analysis of Smith’s claims?<br/>
<br/>
To answer this, we need to consider a little background on climate change and New Zealand’s policy for dealing with it.<br/>
<br/>
In the grand scheme of planetary emissions, New Zealand is a rounding error. Of every tonne of global carbon emissions, New Zealand is responsible for 1.7 kilograms. Since Smith sued only seven New Zealand companies, his case is effectively a few grams out of each global tonne of carbon emissions.<br/>
<br/>
Now, in tort law, the general rule is that there must be a close link between a defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s alleged damage. The legal standard is that it cannot be “too remote”, i.e. the specific action must be causally connected with the harm.<br/>
<br/>
Could any reasonable person think there is such a close link? Would anyone seriously believe that a (globally speaking) tiny amount of carbon dioxide from a specific emitter would cause specific harm in Mr Smith’s life? Had the Supreme Court followed the Court of Appeal’s lead, the case would have been closed.<br/>
<br/>
If the link between action and damage is too loose, then anything goes. According to chaos theory, the flap of a butterfly’s wing can cause a hurricane. By Smith’s logic, if the butterfly had an owner, that owner should pay for the rebuild after the storm.<br/>
<br/>
If this is already problematic, it gets worse. New Zealand has a legislative framework for dealing with carbon emissions: the Emissions Trading Scheme, or “ETS.” All non-agricultural emitters of climate gases in New Zealand must buy carbon units. These units permit them to emit these gases.<br/>
<br/>
The seven companies Smith sued had such certificates for their emissions. So, they were complying with the rules and regulations put in place by parliament and administered by government.<br/>
<br/>
A key part of the rule of law is predictability. If you play by the rules and obey the law, you should not have anything to fear. So how could the companies find themselves sued when they are complying with environmental law?<br/>
<br/>
But wait, not even that is the end of this absurd story. That is because of the way the ETS works.<br/>
<br/>
Under New Zealand’s ETS, the government auctions and allocates a fixed number of emission credits each year. Trading in ETS units only determines who emits how much of that total amount.<br/>
<br/>
If Smith is ultimately successful in his claim, the seven companies will emit less in future. However, under the logic of the ETS, others will emit more. New Zealand’s total emissions will not change by a single gram.<br/>
<br/>
Suing the government for not running a tighter cap would have had some coherence. Suing individual participants in the market does not. Again, one would have expected the Supreme Court to take this into account. Obviously, it did not.<br/>
<br/>
Absurdities abound in this case. Law students learn that without a reasonably close connection between action and damage, there can be no tort. Not so, apparently, in this case.<br/>
<br/>
Law students also learn that statute is the dominant source of law. Of course, this does not prevent common law from being applied and developed. But in this case, the Supreme Court has opened the door for climate change to be brought into common law when a sophisticated statutory regime is already in place.<br/>
<br/>
Moreover, trying to deal with climate change through the common law is doomed to fail under the ETS. In effect, the existence of the ETS makes any common law tort toothless and superfluous.<br/>
<br/>
All of this is, frankly, concerning. The most troubling thing about the Supreme Court’s decision is the signal it sends: Matters of policy and politics (such as climate change) can be decided by the courts.<br/>
<br/>
In a democracy, however, voters elect parliaments to deal with the problems facing society. How democratic would it be for the courts to usurp such matters from elected lawmakers?<br/>
<br/>
New Zealand is lucky to be one of the world’s highest ranked countries for the rule of law. But with decisions like the one just delivered by the Supreme Court, one may wonder for how much longer.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/absurd-new-zealand-courts-can-now-decide-on-climate-change/news-story/b336698c31b25b69eaf174fbbe61efdb">https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/absurd-new-zealand-courts-can-now-decide-on-climate-change/news-story/b336698c31b25b69eaf174fbbe61efdb</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-19874668679651211242024-02-14T23:18:00.002+13:002024-02-14T23:18:21.461+13:00<br><b> Climate change row as British scientists claim ‘Day After Tomorrow’ modelling is wrong</b><br/>
<br/>
A climate model predicting a devastating ‘Day After Tomorrow’ collapse of ocean systems has been criticised for relying on ‘entirely unrealistic’ scenarios.<br/>
<br/>
A Dutch team from Utrecht University published work in the journal of Science Advances this week suggesting that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could reach a tipping point, triggering a new ice age.<br/>
<br/>
The AMOC transports heat and salt throughout the world’s oceans and helps regulate the global climate, driving the Gulf Stream that keeps Britain warmer than it should be for its northerly latitude.<br/>
<br/>
In the apocalyptic science fiction film The Day After Tomorrow, the ocean system is disrupted by climate change, plunging the northern hemisphere into a permanent winter.<br/>
<br/>
Although ice-core data suggests the AMOC can switch off, recent sophisticated modelling has not been able to reproduce the effect, leading many scientists to think a collapse is unlikely to happen.<br/>
<br/>
The new study claims to have shown that AMOC is “on route to tipping”, a prospect that the authors say is “bad news for the climate system and humanity”.<br/>
<br/>
However British scientists warned that the outcome had been “forced” by using unlikely variables, such as assuming large influxes of freshwater into the Atlantic.<br/>
<br/>
Prof Jonathan Bamber, director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at Bristol University, said: “They did this by imposing a huge freshwater forcing to the North Atlantic that is entirely unrealistic for even the most extreme warming scenario over the next century.<br/>
<br/>
“Their freshwater forcing applied to the North Atlantic is equivalent to six cm/year of sea level rise by the end of the experiment, which is more than seen during the collapse of the ice sheet that covered North America during the last glaciation.”<br/>
<br/>
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the AMOC is unlikely to collapse this century, and many scientists do not believe it will fail even if the climate continues to warm.<br/>
<br/>
Observational data for the ocean system only goes back to 2004, making it difficult to predict, and because it spans the globe, most models cannot account for all the nuances and influences.<br/>
<br/>
Commenting on the new research, Prof Andrew Watson, of Exeter University, said “They say it suggests that ‘the present day AMOC is on route to tipping’.<br/>
<br/>
‘Push it quite hard’<br/>
<br/>
“This sounds alarming, but it’s important to note that this is not the same as saying collapse is going to happen imminently. They have to run their model for a long time (1,700 years) and push it quite hard to make the collapse happen.<br/>
<br/>
“Models are not reality. The real system may be more, or less, prone to collapse than this model suggests.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/climate-change-modelling-wrong-claim-uk-scientists/">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/climate-change-modelling-wrong-claim-uk-scientists/</a>
</p>
****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Britain’s Disastrous Path to Net Zero Is a Warning to the U.S.</b><br/>
<br/>
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030.<br/>
<br/>
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive.<br/>
<br/>
Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power. The results have been an economic disaster.<br/>
<br/>
At last year’s U.N. climate conference in Dubai, the Biden administration agreed to triple the world’s renewable-energy capacity by 2030. It also joined the Powering Past Coal Alliance, pledging to eliminate coal-powered generation. This is all part of President Biden’s goal to completely decarbonize the U.S. electrical grid by 2035 and achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.<br/>
<br/>
Britain has been going down this path since 2008, when Parliament wrote an 80 percent decarbonization target into law, which it raised to 100 percent, or net zero, in 2019. This luxury net-zero policy, which only the rich can afford, has been devastating for both businesses and ordinary Britons just trying to heat their homes and get to work.<br/>
<br/>
A new report for the RealClear Foundation by Rupert Darwall is a timely and much-needed warning to America. It shows what would happen if Democrats and progressives get their way and inflict net-zero climate policies on the country.<br/>
<br/>
British politicians boast of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions faster than any other major economy but ignore the unfortunate fact that Britain’s economy has been performing poorly since 2008.<br/>
<br/>
In 2020, even before the recent surge in energy costs, everyday Britons were paying about 75 percent more for electricity than Americans, the result of a double whammy—cap-and-trade policies on the one hand and renewable subsidies on the other. And then came the Ukraine shock. During the 2022 energy crisis, electricity rates for British businesses were more than double the average paid by U.S. businesses.<br/>
<br/>
In Britain, the impact of cap-and-trade on the cost of fuel to generate electricity is massive. In 2022, government-imposed carbon costs averaged $128 per megawatt hour (MWh) for coal-generated electricity and $51 per MWh for natural gas. Those costs are on top of actual fuel costs, which averaged $150 per MWh for electricity generated from coal and $160 per MWh for natural gas. These mean that it cost $278 to generate 1 MWh of electricity from coal and $211 from natural gas.<br/>
<br/>
In the United States, electricity prices were significantly lower for two reasons. First, no cap-and-trade policies. Second, for coal, British power stations were old and operated at much lower thermal efficiencies than in the U.S. (the U.K. has nearly phased out all coal-powered stations—although some had to be brought back during a 2023 cold snap); and, for natural gas, it is much cheaper piped (as it is in the U.S.) than liquified and shipped (as it is in Europe).<br/>
<br/>
So in the U.S., the fuel cost per MWh of electricity generated from coal was $27 per MWh (versus $278 in Britain) and $61 per MWh for natural gas (versus $211 in Britain).<br/>
<br/>
Britons also have to pay the cost of subsidizing politically favored wind and solar. Analysis of the renewable portfolios of Britain’s Big Six energy companies shows that the average price for wind- and solar-generated electricity between 2009 and 2020 was well over £100 per MWh, whereas the price for reliable electricity from gas- and coal-fired power stations fell from £60 per MWh in 2013 to less than £50 per MWh in 2020.<br/>
<br/>
That same year, consumer subsidies of renewables helped the Big Six to earn a profit of £61 per MWh of electricity on average for the higher-cost, intermittent, demand-unresponsive and therefore less valuable renewable outputs. On the other hand, government-imposed costs forced the Big Six to take massive write-downs on their gas-fired power stations, collectively recording a staggering £1.6 billion loss in 2014 for providing the lower-cost, reliable generating capacity on which Britain’s households and businesses depend.<br/>
<br/>
Unsurprisingly, these policies have led to overinvestment in renewables and underinvestment in the reliable generating capacity needed to keep the lights on—and the costs down. Britain’s unintermittent, reliable coal- and gas-generating capacity peaked in 2010, at 88.0 gigawatts (GW). It then fell by 25.1 GW over the next decade, mainly as coal-fired plants were shuttered. Over the same period, wind and solar capacity rose by 33.5 GW.<br/>
<br/>
Britain has managed to keep its lights on because higher electricity prices have driven demand down. Between 2010 and 2019, economy-wide electricity consumption fell by 10.8 percent. Even so, the gap between consumption and domestic generation has been widening, causing a surge in imported electricity from its European neighbors. That’s not an option for the U.S. We cannot import the equivalent of two-fifths of Canada’s electricity output.<br/>
<br/>
Energy prices comparable to those in Britain—and across much of Europe—would tear the heart out of the American economy, which relies on cheap, abundant energy. The impact on working- and middle-class Americans would be intolerable.<br/>
<br/>
While it is unlikely that Congress would pass legislation like Britain’s Climate Change Act, which made net zero the law of the land after an 88-minute debate in the House of Commons, the threat of net zero is nonetheless as real as it is dangerous.<br/>
<br/>
In May 2021, the White House issued an executive order on the adoption of a whole-of-government approach to climate financial-risk disclosure, demonstrating how an alliance between the administrative state and woke ESG investors on Wall Street would bring about net zero.<br/>
<br/>
In August 2022, Congress passed the energy bill misnamed the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides for budget-busting, fiscally irresponsible uncapped subsidies of wind and solar, which will wreak havoc on the economics of reliable generating capacity, just as they have in Britain.<br/>
<br/>
In 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil-fuel-power generators that, if implemented, would go a long way toward achieving the administration’s economically devastating goal of entirely decarbonizing electricity generation by 2035.<br/>
<br/>
Renewable energy is not a low-cost substitute for fossil fuels. Renewables are not cheap, nor can they provide the reliability that modern societies expect and on which they depend. Darwall’s report convincingly demonstrates how Britain was conned into net zero by deceptive and illusory promises of cheap renewable power. The results have been an economic disaster.<br/>
<br/>
There is still time to heed Britain’s warning and instead choose the path of energy abundance and economic prosperity by developing America’s unsurpassed reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/britains-disastrous-path-net-zero-warning-the-us">https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/britains-disastrous-path-net-zero-warning-the-us</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> The political class is only just realising that voters prefer prosperity over climate jingoism</b><br/>
<br/>
If you want to see how the politics of climate change are shifting, compare today with late 2009. In both cases, a general election was approaching.<br/>
<br/>
In October 2009, with the Copenhagen climate summit imminent, the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, announced that we had only “50 days to save the planet”. The summit failed to agree any substantive action to reduce carbon emissions. The planet survived. But let that pass: the important point for Mr Brown was political. He wanted to make his party look as green as possible for the election, countering the Conservative opposition’s offer, under David Cameron, of “Vote blue, go green”.<br/>
<br/>
It is 15 years on, and we shall have an election fairly soon. Sir Keir Starmer now, like Mr Brown then, is thinking mainly about the ballot box.<br/>
<br/>
After a tussle with their consciences, Sir Keir and Rachel Reeves, who, in 2021, declared at the party conference that she would be Britain’s “first green chancellor”, announced on Thursday that her exciting green investment plan, unveiled in that same speech, will, sort of, not happen. Under that plan, a Labour government would have spent an extra £28 billion every year until 2030, including “borrowing to invest”.<br/>
<br/>
As late as Tuesday, Sir Keir was still clinging publicly to the £28 billion figure. He said he was “unwavering”. But on Thursday he waveringly tried to defuse his own tax bombshell. He had decided, though of course he did not put it like this, that voters care more that Labour should be safe with the economy than it should save the planet.<br/>
<br/>
Since July last year, when Labour failed to grab Boris Johnson’s old Uxbridge seat at a by-election, its leadership has finally noticed that the link in the public mind between the words “green” and “prosperity” has become tenuous. In that by-election, Sadiq Khan’s Ulez is thought to have worked its negative magic. Voters felt the pain of green policies, not the gain.<br/>
<br/>
It follows that looking green is no longer a clear electoral plus. The Tories saw this slightly earlier than Labour last year. They stole a march by lessening the net-zero torture, extending the lives of the internal combustion engine and gas boilers. Probably Rishi Sunak intended no revolution of policy, only its softening, but the effect is marked. Once people realise you can have prosperity or an energy system dominated by renewables, but not both, they will choose prosperity. That realisation has big political consequences. I believe it makes net zero by 2050 unachievable.<br/>
<br/>
A comparable cost-related disenchantment is visible in business. Last September, no bid was received for the government auction of offshore wind acreage. The subsidy was not big enough to make it worth bidders’ while. Before Christmas, Siemens Energy, one of the world’s biggest wind turbine companies, faced a collapse in its share price. Its chairman warned in January that the green transition must be paid for by higher energy bills: anything else was net zero “fairy-tale” thinking, he said.<br/>
<br/>
Business wants green energy only if it is “de-risked” – in other words, if it is subsidised for the life of the asset. It is supposed to be “sustainable”, yet often only taxpayers’ money can sustain it. In short, it is unprofitable. And now, thanks to Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (a title as good as The Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984), businesses will try to extort higher subsidy here and buzz off to America if they cannot get it.<br/>
<br/>
Thursday’s press reported that Ørsted, the gigantic Danish developer of offshore wind in Britain (and elsewhere), is sacking hundreds of workers and abandoning markets after losses of £2.2 billion in 2023. The day before, the new boss of BP, Murray Auchincloss, predicted resurgent demand for fossil fuels, especially gas, and is leading the company in that direction.<br/>
This is the same Mr Auchincloss who, under his now disgraced predecessor, Bernard Looney, had been a leader in the company’s plan to move away from fossil fuels in favour of renewables, which he described as the new “upstream oil and gas”. BP lost competitive edge against its rivals. We don’t hear about that plan any longer.<br/>
<br/>
Part of the Looney case was that the switch to renewables was “grounded in economic reality”. We have now been with green energy and government attacks on fossil fuels long enough for people to wonder if that is true.<br/>
<br/>
As is well set out in Rupert Darwall’s new short book, The Folly of Climate Leadership (RealClear Foundation), the increasing costs have been relentless. They are particularly high here because of what Darwall calls Britain’s “climate jingoism” – our vainglorious desire to get ahead in what successive governments have decided is a race to net zero.<br/>
<br/>
Our Climate Change Act of 2008 mandated an overall cut in greenhouse gases of 80 per cent of the 1990 baseline by 2050. That was under Labour, led by Mr Brown. In 2019, that percentage was upped to 100 per cent (“net zero”) and became law after only 88 minutes’ debate in the Commons. That was under the Conservatives, led by Theresa May. In 2020, we were told that Britain would become “the Saudi Arabia of wind power”. That, of course, was under the Conservatives, led by Boris Johnson.<br/>
<br/>
Our heroic example did not inspire others. Between 2008 and 2019, our CO2 fossil-fuel emissions fell by 33 per cent, but those from the rest of the world rose by 16 per cent, wiping out in 140 days, Darwall calculates, the reductions we achieved over 11 years.<br/>
<br/>
There is a high price for setting this pace: by 2020, our citizens were paying about 75 per cent more for their electricity than were Americans. Darwall points out that, from 2008-22, Britain has experienced its lowest underlying growth rate since the 18th century.<br/>
<br/>
The two phenomena are related. Competitively priced energy is essential for robust economic growth. By the 1990s, with Arthur Scargill well beaten and privatisations accomplished in the previous decade, Britain had achieved a good and secure energy mix on the “gas to nuclear” track, rendered more efficient by letting price signals drive changes. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, but a relatively clean one. Today our energy system is expensive, creaky, insecure, teetering on the edge of serious power cuts and, since the invasion of Ukraine, vulnerable to the malevolence of Vladimir Putin.<br/>
<br/>
If you survey this history, two thoughts arise. One is the uniformity of error across the political spectrum. How was it that most people in all main parties thought they had to think the same things about the complicated and uncertain subject of climate change? Why did they unquestioningly accept ideas like the uniformity of “the science”, the concept of “emergency” in relation to policy, or the ability of governments, rather than businesses and consumers, to make the most efficient choices?<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/political-class-voters-prosperity-climate-jingoism/?mc_cid=3ade45c9b3&mc_eid=cc88839e92">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/09/political-class-voters-prosperity-climate-jingoism/?mc_cid=3ade45c9b3&mc_eid=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
******************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Net Zero becomes all dissonance and no cognition</b><br/>
<br/>
Politicians have trapped themselves into waging a crusade voters say they want but won’t pay for.<br/>
<br/>
The fault, dear Olaf, lies not in ourselves but in our voters.<br/>
<br/>
That, with apologies to Shakespeare, is starting to look like an explanation for the net-zero agonies now engulfing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and many other Western politicians. It’s both fun and accurate to lambaste our political class for its many climate hypocrisies and idiocies. But as climate policy becomes more expensive and less coherent by the week, voters deserve more and more of the blame.<br/>
<br/>
A clue lies in a report released this week by the Ifo Institute, a think tank in Germany. Some 55% of respondents said they believe their country should play a leading role in the global effort to combat climate change, in a poll of Germans conducted last September. Considerably fewer were willing to pay anything for it. Asked their preferred measures for achieving net zero, only 16% supported mandates such as a ban on natural-gas-fired home heating that would impose direct costs on households. Eight percent supported an explicit carbon tax, the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions.<br/>
<br/>
The punch line is that Germans’ most popular option for addressing climate change was “targeted subsidies for climate-friendly measures,” which 28% of respondents supported. Note the timing. This poll was conducted before a constitutional court ruling in November disallowed Berlin’s preferred method for using off-balance-sheet government borrowing to fund climate-related subsidies. Germans supported climate subsidies when it looked like free money.<br/>
<br/>
Not anymore. The admission that subsidies must be funded by tax increases or offsetting spending cuts has cast Mr. Scholz’s administration into a crisis from which it might not recover. Case in point: A mass protest—by farmers, as it happens—erupted when Berlin tried to inch toward a policy vaguely resembling a carbon tax. The administration had to backtrack. Whatever else voters say they want on climate, people really, really don’t want to redistribute the costs of mitigation toward those who emit more carbon—at least not if Johann Q. Publik thinks he might be the emitter in question.<br/>
<br/>
I don’t mean to pick on the Germans, as rich a vein as that is. Everyone else is confused, too. A December poll in Britain found that 85% of respondents described climate change as “an important problem” facing the U.K. (with 46% of respondents describing it as the most important or one of the most important problems). Forty-one percent said they’d be more likely to vote for a party that promised strong action on climate change vs. 33% who said they’d be more likely to vote for a party promising to slow down on climate policy.<br/>
<br/>
Do they mean it? Of course not. The same poll found less than a quarter of respondents saying climate-change or net-zero policies would be “very important” in determining their votes in the election due this year. In a question for which respondents could choose more than one answer, 57% said they would vote based on policy promises concerning the National Health Service and healthcare, and 55% said they’d focus on the parties’ approaches to inflation.<br/>
<br/>
Surveys in several large European economies in August found at least two-thirds of respondents in each country were worried about climate change—and totally unwilling to pay any personal costs to mitigate it. In: planting trees, subsidizing home insulation, taxing heavily emitting companies. Out: banning internal-combustion cars, limiting meat and dairy consumption, increasing fuel taxes. Hilarious: Voters support a frequent-flyer tax as long as they don’t think they’ll have to pay it themselves, since taxing all flights remains deeply unpopular.<br/>
<br/>
Squaring the circles of our many and varied cognitive dissonances is what we as voters pay our politicians to do. The problem is that for years politicians have been leaning into the dissonance rather than the cognition.<br/>
<br/>
By promulgating apocalyptic rhetoric about climate change, the climate-industrial complex in politics, academia, green tech and the media has persuaded voters that climate change is an existential danger. This is why 77% of Britons can tell a pollster that climate change is “a serious global threat” and Germans can come to view their global leadership on this issue in quasimoral terms. We don’t even talk about our beloved entitlements this way, let alone any other policy with the possible exception of immigration.<br/>
<br/>
What a crash, then, as voters start noticing what net zero might cost them personally. Knowing that they can’t or won’t bear the costs themselves but also unable or unwilling to drop the moral crusade, voters instead demand ever more creative expenditures of someone else’s money to achieve climate goals.<br/>
<br/>
This explains the reluctance of even moderately sensible politicians to admit what they’re so obviously doing: abandoning the climate project. Rollbacks of the most expensive, least popular climate measures, such as electric-vehicle mandates or agricultural-vehicle taxes, invariably are accompanied by pledges to keep doing something else for the climate at someone else’s expense.<br/>
<br/>
It’s a note of caution for those of us breathing a sigh of relief at recent net-zero reversals. Voters are growing clearer-headed about what they aren’t prepared to pay to avert climate change. Yet true sanity won’t arrive until they’ve decided they also don’t care.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-all-dissonance-no-cognition-voters-want-green-policy-but-not-to-pay-for-it-14d2baa2">https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-all-dissonance-no-cognition-voters-want-green-policy-but-not-to-pay-for-it-14d2baa2</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-43101733426665369982024-02-13T15:59:00.002+13:002024-02-13T15:59:28.863+13:00 <b> Climate Change Is Not Behind Lake Mead’s Decline, Overuse and Poor Management Are</b><br/>
<br/>
With an atmospheric river dumping trillions of gallons precipitation on California and other western states, some news outlets have asked how the precipitation might affect Lake Mead, suggesting that the rainfall will do little for the lake or the Colorado River basin which feeds it because it’s drying out due to climate change. Although it is true that the current storm will likely do little to reverse Lake Mead’s decline in the long-term, the reason for its decline is not climate change, but instead, overuse and poor management of the reservoir.<br/>
<br/>
A number of mainstream media outlets ran stories in recent days remarking on the fact that the recent atmospheric river event is dumping more water in a few days than Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir by volume, can hold at full capacity. On February 7, for example, Newsweek, ran two stories on the heavy rains, “Bomb Cyclone To Dump More Water Than in Lake Mead on California,” and “Atmospheric Rivers Won’t Refill Lakes Mead and Powell, says expert.”<br/>
<br/>
These two stories were largely straight forward reporting, the kind of honest journalism Americans used to expect from the media outlets. Newsweek did not attribute the present atmospheric river or Lake’s Mead or Powell present water levels to climate change.<br/>
<br/>
Also, Lake Mead’s water levels are dominated, not by a single rainfall event, affecting areas primarily downstream of the reservoir, but by seasonal snowpack across the course of the winter which, when it melts over time, flows into the lake, its feeder streams, and Lake Powell above it, which is the primary source of stream flow feeding Lake Mead. Last season’s record snowfall on mountains of the Colorado River Basin boosted lake levels.<br/>
<br/>
Courthouse News and the Missoula Current each ran stories covering a trial in which climate activists are suing U.S. Department of the Interior for setting a management plan that fails to account for the impacts of climate change, which they claim is causing lake and river levels to fall.<br/>
<br/>
As detailed at Climate Realism, here, here, here, and here, for example, this is not the first time climate activists, often with the support of the mainstream media, have falsely claimed climate change has caused a precipitation decline in the Western United States, which they blame for recent declines in Lake Mead, the Great Salt Lake, and Lake Tahoe. Mismanagement is part of the story of the decline in some Western rivers, reservoirs, and lakes, but there is no evidence long-term climate change is contributing to the decline. Myriad other factors are, though.<br/>
<br/>
As Newsweek reports, Lake Mead did reach its lowest measured water levels since filling in history in 2022, but it had similar low-level seasons in from 1955-1957 and again in 1964 and 1965, nearly 70 and 60 years of global warming ago, respectively, when temperatures were cooler.<br/>
<br/>
The U.S. Drought Monitor reports that under 35 percent of the Colorado river basin, touching on seven states and parts of northern Mexico, is currently suffering any drought, and only approximately 3 percent of the area is suffering extreme or exceptional drought. A review of the history shows that record lake levels were recorded between 1965 and 1983, with Lake Mead remaining consistently above average through 2002, a representing a 37-year period of sustained above average water levels, even as temperatures were rising. As is noted in Climate at a Glance: Water Levels – Lake Mead, after 37 years of abundance, some decline was bound to eventually occur.<br/>
<br/>
Since then, the Colorado River Basin has on average experienced below average precipitation, but it is in the arid West so that is to be expected. The U.S. drought monitor shows some years with severe, widespread drought for extended periods of time, and some years in which less than 10 percent of the basin was experiencing any drought at all. Regardless there is no clear trend of droughts of increasing intensity that would suggest climate change was causing a sustained decline in precipitation across the basin.<br/>
<br/>
Since climate change can’t be shown to be contributing to Lake Mead’s decline, we must examine other factors which might, and there are many. The National Park Service (NPS) discusses two factors contributing to Lake Mead’s decline that are entirely ignored by climate alarmists: sedimentation and evaporation. Concerning evaporation, the NPS writes, “[e]vaporation in the area is extremely high and represents a significant water loss [equaling] … almost 10% of the average annual inflow.”<br/>
<br/>
In addition, the NPS cites research which suggests that by 1970 the build up of sediment behind the Hoover Dam had already robbed Lake Mead of approximately 12 percent of its volume. Some of that sediment has likely compacted since then, but over the 54 years since that study study was done sediment has continued to flow into Lake Mead and accumulated, so its volume had undoubtedly shrunk even more. Sustained dredging operations would both increase Lake Mead’s volume and provide valuable, fertile soil for those who might want it.<br/>
<br/>
The most important single factor in Lake Mead’s decline, however, is the tremendous growth in population for the region. Arizona and Nevada are two of the fastest growing states in the United States. The number of agricultural, urban, and industrial users of water from Lake Mead and its feeder rivers has grown tremendously in the past 30 years. More people farming in, living in and building homes, golf courses, businesses, in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico, means more demand for water from Lake Mead, whether or not precipitation in the basin has declined. Since 1993:<br/>
<br/>
Ever more people drawing water from the limited and variable resource that is Lake Mead, would naturally result in declining lake levels, unless the stream flow into it were dramatically increased. The latter is precluded by the fact that other states that draw water from the Colorado River, and other tributary rivers in the Colorado River Basin, have also experienced dramatic population growth, meaning there is less water flowing into Lake Mead simply because more people are taking more water out of its tributaries for more uses upstream. The largest source of water for Lake Mead is outflow from Lake Powell, yet Lake Powell is also oversubscribed and has the same problems with sedimentation and evaporation that Lake Mead does, limiting the water sent downstream to Lake Mead. Less flow in, more water withdrawn is a recipe for declining water levels.<br/>
<br/>
And that’s not even counting the increase in water demand from Mexico.<br/>
<br/>
Both California and the Federal government basically acknowledged in December 2023 that over withdrawal is the prime cause of Lake Mead’s declining fortunes. As reported by Fox News, “water districts representing California farmers and other major water users in the state agreed to significant cuts in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government.” The government estimates that this agreement by itself will result in Lake Mead rising at least 10 feet. Similar agreements with Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico would be expected to increase Lake Mead’s volume even more.<br/>
<br/>
In short, myriad factors have resulted in Lake Mead’s substantial water loss. Climate Change is not among them.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/climate-change-is-not-behind-lake-meads-decline-overuse-and-poor-management-are/">https://climaterealism.com/2024/02/climate-change-is-not-behind-lake-meads-decline-overuse-and-poor-management-are/</a>
</p>
*****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> EU Parliament groups clash on 2040 climate goal, in post-election preview</b><br/>
<br/>
Political groups in the European Parliament have offered radically opposing views on the EU’s recommended climate objective for 2040 this week, in a foretaste of debates to come after the June EU election.<br/>
<br/>
For several months, opinion polls have all pointed in the same direction: The European Parliament is set to make a sharp turn to the right after the 2024 elections, with far-right and nationalist parties expected to make big gains at the expense of the Greens, leftists, and liberals.<br/>
<br/>
In other words, the “Green wave” that swept through Parliament after the last EU election, paving the way for the European Green Deal in 2019, is set to come crashing down and recede five years later.<br/>
<br/>
What could this mean for the EU’s climate policies?<br/>
<br/>
The EU got a foretaste earlier this week when MEPs debated the European Commission’s recommended climate target for 2040 – a 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels.<br/>
<br/>
Here’s a round-up of what they said.<br/>
<br/>
Nationalists and far-right<br/>
<br/>
Taking the floor at the Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, hardline conservative and far-right groups warned about the social consequences and risk of de-industrialisation associated with higher EU climate goals.<br/>
<br/>
Speaking on behalf of the nationalist ECR group, Czech MEP Alexandr Vondra called out the EU’s “unrealistic ambition” to cut emissions by 90%.<br/>
<br/>
“But the main issue in the climate plan for 2040 lies elsewhere,” he said. “It’s the effort to force people to have a different lifestyle, to restrict their freedom of choice.”<br/>
<br/>
The Parliament debate took place amid protests from farmers who stood outside the building in Strasbourg while MEPs watched EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra present his recommended climate target for 2040.<br/>
<br/>
“Have you informed your electorate about this? Have you been open about your plans, of what their lives would look like if you really do this? Have you told farmers and the people that energy, transport, housing, meat and other basic foodstuffs will be more expensive?” the Czech MEP said.<br/>
<br/>
“How far do you want to go, and how far do you want to try their patience?” Vondra asked Hoekstra, who sat in the first rank of the hemicycle after his presentation to listen to successive speeches from MEPs.<br/>
<br/>
“I think it’s a serious risk to make such a proposal before the elections, without knowing the real socio and economic impact,” Vondra warned.<br/>
<br/>
Vondra’s warning is not to be taken lightly. His political group, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), is expected to grow its number of seats to 80 after the June election, up from 62 seats in the current Parliament, according to the latest projections in mid-January.<br/>
<br/>
The far-right Identity and Democracy (ID) group, for its part, is expected to grow from 73 seats in the current Parliament to 93 seats after the EU elections.<br/>
<br/>
They were represented in Strasbourg by Sylvia Limmer, a lawmaker from Germany’s AfD party, who warned against the economic consequences of setting ever-higher emissions reduction targets at EU level.<br/>
<br/>
“Look at my own country, the ‘green champion’ Germany. De-industrialisation is progressing happily because companies can’t afford the highest electricity prices around the world,” she exclaimed.<br/>
<br/>
And even though Germany’s share of renewables is nominally at 36.8% on paper, “on many days more than 90% of electricity is generated by coal, oil, and gas” because there is no wind or sun, she snarked.<br/>
<br/>
Meanwhile, the EU’s wealth has decreased to reach 14.3% of global GDP, while emerging economies from the BRIC countries “enjoy rising CO2 levels and rising a rising share of global GDP at 32%,” Limmer pointed out.<br/>
<br/>
“The green red policies are just pretty much the worst economic meltdown that we’ve seen in the history of the EU,” she concluded.<br/>
<br/>
Full story:<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-parliament-groups-clash-on-2040-climate-goal-in-post-election-preview/">https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/eu-parliament-groups-clash-on-2040-climate-goal-in-post-election-preview/</a>
</p>
**************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Germany’s ESG swindle: 36% of ESG funds invest in coal, 55% in oil and gas</b><br/>
<br/>
Hundreds of ESG funds approved in Germany present a green image. And at the same time invest in the expansion of coal, oil and gas. How can that be?<br/>
<br/>
A name is a promise. And sometimes this promise sounds so good that you don't even take a closer look. For example, if you invest in a fund called “Allianz Stiftungsfonds Sustainability”. 130 million euros in fund assets, low risk of loss. No tobacco production, no sales of controversial weapons. Sounds good at first. But the last half-yearly report reveals: The fund, which promotes sustainability in its name, also invests in BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor. Corporations that produce oil and gas worldwide.<br/>
<br/>
Sustainability is a best seller. From 2020 to 2021, the total amount of sustainable investments in Germany increased by 65 percent, shows the market report from the FNG trade association. From 2021 to 2022 by a further 15 percent. Sustainability sells. But what's behind it? Anyone who wants to invest their money in the financial market today will quickly end up with the abbreviation ESG. It stands for the English terms Environment, Social and Governance. This refers to the criteria of environmental, social and good corporate governance. Anyone who takes them into account when selecting stocks and bonds can speak of a sustainable investment. But securities often don't keep what their label promises.<br/>
<br/>
New data shows: The Allianz Sustainability Foundation Fund is not an isolated case. The Urgewald organization has evaluated 2,168 investment funds approved in Germany that are described as sustainable. Including all of the four largest main providers DWS, Union Investment, Allianz and Deka. The results are available exclusively to ZEIT. 36 percent of all ESG funds examined invest in at least one coal company, 55 percent in at least one oil and gas company. These include many funds that have phrases such as “Clean Energy”, “Carbon Transition”, “Low Carbon”, “Sustainability” or even “Climate” in their names.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.zeit.de/2024/07/nachhaltige-fonds-erdoel-erdgas-klimaschutz-aktien">https://www.zeit.de/2024/07/nachhaltige-fonds-erdoel-erdgas-klimaschutz-aktien</a>
</p>
***********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Germany likely to kill EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Law</b><br/>
<br/>
Since 2022, the European Union has been developing new regulations relating to the responsibilities of corporations for environmental and human rights concerns. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive expands businesses’ liability, not only in their internal operations, but also in their subsidiaries and value chain. The final draft of the CS3D was released on January 20, but requires final approval by the European Parliament, European Commission, and the European Council. However, the approval appears to be meeting strong resistance from Germany, who have indicated they will abstain from CS3D, most likely killing the proposal in the Council vote on February 9.<br/>
<br/>
The CS3D is part of a series of regulatory actions taken by the EU to address climate change and broader environmental, social, and governance issues. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive created ESG reporting obligations for both publicly traded and privately held businesses in the EU. The directive called for the creation of European Sustainability Reporting Standards, the detailed processes used by businesses to report under the CSRD. The drafting of the ESRS was delegated to the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. The first round of ESRS standards were adopted in July 2023, but the adoption of additional standards soon met delays as opposition to the reporting burden on small and medium sized enterprises grew. […]<br/>
<br/>
The delay could be more than a temporary setback for the CS3D. The 2024 European Parliament election is scheduled for the beginning of June. Sustainability advocates are concerned that the composure of the body may change on this issue, removing majority support for both the CS3D and the CSRD.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/2024/02/07/germany-likely-to-kill-eu-corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-law/amp/">https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/2024/02/07/germany-likely-to-kill-eu-corporate-sustainability-due-diligence-law/amp/</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6727975.post-82106391572129616522024-02-12T16:20:00.002+13:002024-02-12T16:20:55.458+13:00<br><b> Britain’s Labour Party Moves Right on Climate</b><br/>
<br/>
Politicians these days are tripping over themselves to abandon net-zero climate policies, and the latest is Britain’s prospective next Prime Minister, Keir Starmer<br/>
<br/>
Sir Keir ditched a promise to spend £28 billion ($35.3 billion) a year on climate measures if Labour takes power. Labour leaders scaled back the promise last year when they said they’d ramp up to that level of spending gradually rather than opening the money faucet immediately. Now they say they won’t spend it at all.<br/>
<br/>
Some party leaders have believed that promising an aggressive transition to net-zero carbon emissions is part of Labour’s path to victory. This might be true in some urban precincts and among the culturally left-leaning and younger cohorts in the Labour base.<br/>
<br/>
But Mr. Starmer and cooler heads in the party realized many more swing voters would be turned off by a spending pledge in support of policies that threaten jobs in manufacturing and the North Sea oil patch. They also seem to suspect that British taxpayers, already paying a postwar high of 36% of GDP in taxes, wouldn’t tolerate higher levies for climate action.<br/>
<br/>
Abandoning net zero isn’t easy for Mr. Starmer, since the media and political class have spent years promoting climate change as a crisis. He faces pressure to devise some alternative climate plan. If that relies on expensive mandates for households or businesses, the costs to the British economy could be larger than the £28 billion in direct taxpayer cash he has now abandoned.<br/>
<br/>
A similar dilemma afflicts the ruling Conservative Party. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak scaled back an electric-vehicle mandate and abandoned an effective tax on natural-gas boilers used by homes for central heating and hot water. Yet political pressure, including from green Tories, has prevented Mr. Sunak from admitting openly that net-zero is a foolish goal for an industrial economy. So a bevy of other distorting subsidies and regulations remain.<br/>
<br/>
Still, politicians have to start somewhere. Credit Mr. Starmer for staring down the green faction in his party and focusing instead on making his party a plausible alternative to the Tories, which voters seem to want.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-labour-party-keir-starmer-net-zero-climate-spending-tories-2fef887d?mc_cid=3ade45c9b3&mc_eid=cc88839e92">https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-labour-party-keir-starmer-net-zero-climate-spending-tories-2fef887d?mc_cid=3ade45c9b3&mc_eid=cc88839e92</a>
</p>
***************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> Congress and Courts Enable Energy and Climate Fantasy and Tyranny</b><br/>
<br/>
The left end of the political spectrum is relentlessly pursuing the transformation of America’s society, history, economy, speech, borders, governing systems, healthcare, energy and living standards. What it cannot secure via the ballot box and alliances with the legacy media and academic institutions, it works to impose through rule by unelected, unaccountable Executive Branch bureaucrats, collusive sue-and-settle legal actions, and court decisions that too often rubberstamp agency rules.<br/>
<br/>
Instead of three co-equal divisions of government, the powers and functions of America’s Legislative and Judicial Branches have steadily been subsumed into an ever expanding, progressive and aggressive Executive Branch. Legislators and judges have acquiesced or actively participated.<br/>
<br/>
The federal workforce has swollen to two million non-military employees, who “liberally” interpret, apply and enforce laws and policies. The Federal Register of regulations, explanations and justifications has ballooned from 50,998 pages in 1984, to a Jabba-the-Hutt 90,402 pages in 2023. Few can read, much less comprehend and comply with the intricate edicts.<br/>
<br/>
Members of Congress want to be seen “doing something” to address perceived societal and environmental problems, often by holding hearings, enacting laws and spending money. However, instead of actually tackling difficult, controversial issues, they frequently make policy declarations, enact deliberately ambiguous statutory provisions, and rely on Executive Branch cohorts to interpret, stretch or even rewrite the vague language, thereby advancing agency powers and agendas.<br/>
<br/>
Expanding this centralization of power even more significantly, the US Supreme Court rendered its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.<br/>
<br/>
The “Chevron deference doctrine” holds that – when confronted with regulations that are based on ambiguous, or nonexistent, statutory text – lower courts should always defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of the text, as long as the interpretation is “reasonable.”<br/>
<br/>
Chevron deference has let federal agencies expand their domain and control in hundreds of instances, step by step, inch by inch. Affected citizens often have little or no recourse, as long as the impact of an individual rule can be viewed as small and the agency interpretation as not patently unreasonable.<br/>
<br/>
In those situations, the 2022 Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. EPA is of little help, because it only addresses “major questions,” agency decisions that have “major” economic or political significance.<br/>
<br/>
However, the Court recently heard oral arguments on two cases that give it an opportunity to end this wholesale deference to federal agencies. Both cases ask whether small fishing boats can be required to pay $700 per day to take federal agents along with them, to ensure the boats are following fisheries rules. Relevant law allows the government to require fishing boats to carry observers – but does not say the boats must pay for them, and Congress never appropriated any funds to cover observers.<br/>
<br/>
So, on its own, the National Marine Fisheries Service decided it had the authority to compel boats to shoulder the cost. The case could have enormous implications for the perpetually expanding Deep State.<br/>
<br/>
The Justices could rule in favor of NMFS, even though monetary impacts that are small by federal governing and budgetary standards are major, even potentially ruinous for fishing boats.<br/>
<br/>
They could hold that the agency interpretation in this single instance was “unreasonable” – and overturn this single rulemaking out of thousands issued since 1984, while leaving the Chevron doctrine intact and available for future abuse.<br/>
<br/>
Or they could overturn Chevron. Doing so would end the appalling deference to powerful government agencies; reduce the growing imbalance between the Executive and Legislative Branches; and make it harder for circuit and appellate courts to support activist regulators.<br/>
<br/>
A reversal might even prod Congress to enact laws that tackle hard questions, use precise language, and tighten the reins on unelected regulators, especially when they serve presidents who want to “fundamentally transform” our energy use, immigration system, economy and military.<br/>
<br/>
The third option would also help America curb climate and energy fantasy and tyranny.<br/>
<br/>
It’s certainly true that most federal actions taken to “save our planet from the existential threat of manmade climate change” are “major” or “significant” in their societal, economic, ecological and national security impacts – and thus subject to the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine.”<br/>
<br/>
However, that Court has not defined “major.” Moreover, even actions that most Americans would call “major” can end up being upheld, and agencies can claim significant actions are “minor” or simply ignore court decisions that don’t apply explicitly to the agency or action in question.<br/>
<br/>
Even in the climate and energy arena alone, hundreds of “minor” decisions can coalesce into massive disruptions and costs. Questions of Chevron deference should examine the totality of impacts – and whether a decision can actually pass a rational, evidence-based “reasonableness” test. To cite just a few examples, is it reasonable to defer to federal agencies that:<br/>
<br/>
Impose government-wide mandates to terminate America’s coal, oil and natural gas extraction and use, based on computer models whose scary forecasts: (a) are built on the assumption that climate change and weather events are driven by fossil-fuel-related carbon dioxide and methane, which together represent barely 0.042% of Earth’s atmosphere; and (b) are not supported by actual, real-world data on temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts and sea levels?<br/>
<br/>
Keep oil and gas locked in the ground before they have any workable plan for replacing feed stocks for plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers and thousands of other vital products?<br/>
<br/>
Compel families and businesses to replace gasoline vehicles and gas ovens, stoves, furnaces and water heaters with electric models – while regulators replace reliable, affordable fossil fuel power with intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar power?<br/>
<br/>
Close down coal and gas-fired generators before sufficient, reliable, affordable replacement electricity is available – and before a single project anywhere in the world has demonstrated that wind, solar and battery electricity alone can power even a small village?<br/>
<br/>
Demand that families purchase supposedly energy- or water-efficient washing machines and dishwashers, even though the new machines must run longer or even twice to get clothes or dishes clean – thereby requiring more electricity and water?<br/>
<br/>
Mandate electric vehicles before there are sufficient charging stations, electricity for those stations, or even metals and minerals to manufacture all the EVs, charging stations, wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines?<br/>
<br/>
Assert that wind, solar and battery power are clean, green, renewable and sustainable, while ignoring the monumental amounts of mining and processing – and attendant habitat and wildlife destruction, toxic air and water pollution, and child labor – involved in obtaining the metals and minerals for those technologies?<br/>
<br/>
Insist that the United States slash or eliminate its fossil fuel use, while China, India and 100 other countries (including Germany) are extracting and burning more oil, gas and coal every year?<br/>
<br/>
Courts must no longer view government actions in a vacuum. They are reasonable only in an alternative universe where individual and cumulative economic, ecological and social realities play no role. The era of Chevron deference to this federal agency climate and energy fantasy and tyranny must be ended.<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2024/02/08/congress-and-courts-enable-e-and-climate-fantasy-and-tyranny-n2634950">https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2024/02/08/congress-and-courts-enable-e-and-climate-fantasy-and-tyranny-n2634950</a>
</p>
****************************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> UN Says Melting Arctic Ice Is Key Indicator of Climate Change—But It’s Not Melting</b><br/>
<br/>
It’s bad news for polar bears, according to the most recent assessment report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).<br/>
Because of increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions, modeling and simulations predict the Arctic will be without ice during the month of September by 2050.<br/>
<br/>
“We project an ice-free Arctic in September under all scenarios considered,” a scientific report highlighting IPCC’s findings states. “These results emphasize the profound impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the Arctic.”<br/>
A similar prediction was made in 2013, but at that time, the prediction was for no ice by about 2033.<br/>
<br/>
“All climate models are projecting an ice-free summer within the next 20 years or so,” Ron Kwok, a senior research scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in July 2013. “It’s not very far away.”<br/>
<br/>
However, a new report by Allan Astrup Jensen, research director and CEO at the Nordic Institute of Product Sustainability and Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology in Denmark, shows that from September 2007 through September 2023, Arctic sea ice declines were near zero.<br/>
More Articles<br/>
<br/>
“The facts are that the Arctic Sea ice extent measured by satellites since 1978 expresses annual variations, and it has declined considerably from 1997 to 2007. However, before that time period, from 1978 to 1996, the downward trend was minimal, and in the last 17 years, from 2007 to 2023, the downward trend has also been about zero,” the report states.<br/>
“Therefore, there is no indication that we should expect the Arctic Sea summer ice to disappear completely, as predicted, in one or two decades.”<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Jensen told The Epoch Times that the IPCC and other organizations “exclude the possibility that the sea ice extent may expand in the future and even reach levels from before 1996.”<br/>
<br/>
“That is because they believe that the driver of the sea ice extent is the predicted warming by rising CO2 levels in the troposphere,” he said.<br/>
<br/>
Frank Geisel is an ocean engineer and naval architect who examined ice thickness in the Arctic and Antarctic with the Coast Guard over several expeditions in the 1980s.<br/>
<br/>
He said it’s problematic to measure sea ice extent and ice thickness and then conclude that CO2 is driving a decline and should then be mitigated.<br/>
<br/>
“We can’t just issue a command and say, ‘If we do this, then this will happen,’” Mr. Geisel told The Epoch Times. “Well, maybe. But maybe not.”<br/>
<br/>
CO2 and Sea Ice<br/>
<br/>
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) to record Arctic sea ice yearly minimums in September, at the end of the summer melt season. The measurement is based on sea ice extent, which is the square mileage of ice covering the Arctic Ocean during a specified time.<br/>
<br/>
In September 1979, the NOAA reported that the Arctic sea ice yearly minimum was 2.72 million square miles. At that same time, CO2 concentrations were 337.1 parts per million (ppm), according to The Nature Conservancy.<br/>
<br/>
Nearly 20 years later, in 1996, CO2 concentrations had risen to 362.58 ppm, and the September Arctic sea ice yearly minimum had increased to 2.93 million square miles.<br/>
<br/>
After 1996, the sea ice extent declined until 2007, with the most significant drop occurring between 2006 and 2007—from 2.26 million square miles in 2006 to 1.65 million square miles by 2007. CO2 concentrations were 383.37 ppm.<br/>
<br/>
After the 2007 results were released, the American Geophysical Union issued a report warning that the Arctic may be “on the verge” of a fundamental change, and images of starving polar bears stranded on floating ice slabs became commonplace.<br/>
<br/>
Due in part to their declining habitat, on May 15, 2008, polar bears were listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.<br/>
<br/>
But the sea ice extent recordings in the Septembers of 2008 and 2009 increased, and despite hitting a record low in 2012, from 2007 to 2023, sea ice declines have been close to zero.<br/>
<br/>
In September 2023—during what NOAA’s Ms. Kapnick called “by far” the warmest year in NOAA’s 174-year climate record—the Arctic sea ice yearly minimum was 1.69 million square miles, an increase of about 40,000 square miles from 2007. CO2 was 421.55 ppm in 2023.<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Jensen said that a couple of years ago, he started to make and post charts and diagrams with the NSIDC’s data to provide people with simple visual representations.<br/>
<br/>
“My first diagram I did send to NSIDC but I got no reaction from that organization. It surprised me. It has also surprised me that many people, including scientists and even friends, are difficult to convince that the sea ice has been unchanged since 2007, although I use the same official data also used by the IPCC,” Mr. Jensen said.<br/>
<br/>
“They are brainwashed by the many alarmist news articles telling about a decrease in the Arctic sea ice, and [by] their great respect for the U.N. organization IPCC.”<br/>
<br/>
Mr. Geisel said he’s concerned some scientists and policymakers are using “a very precise, almost microanalysis on a very, very macro situation.”<br/>
<br/>
“We’re looking at processes that change over decades, and we’re trying to understand how we’re going to respond this year,” Mr. Geisel said.<br/>
<br/>
“If you study the weather systems in the high Arctic, there’s a tremendous high-pressure system that’s well known by weather geeks that sits on the top of the Pole. ... And it shifts, and it’s well known that it shifts positions and thus changes the weather patterns on a decadal frequency—we’re talking 10, 12 years.<br/>
<br/>
“Those are really massive, longer-term processes that all of our technology can’t fully understand.”<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/un-says-melting-arctic-ice-is-a-key-indicator-of-climate-change-but-its-not-melting-5580038?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=most-read-3">https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/un-says-melting-arctic-ice-is-a-key-indicator-of-climate-change-but-its-not-melting-5580038?ea_src=au-frontpage&ea_med=most-read-3</a>
</p>
*********************************************<br/>
<br/>
<b> In Central Asia’s Brutal Winter, Fossil Fuels Trump Climate Politics</b><br/>
<br/>
Globally, winter cold kills more people than summer heat, and winter in Central Asia is no gentle visitor. Temperatures can plummet to minus 40 degrees C (minus 40 degrees F), transforming bustling cities into frozen landscapes and testing the limits of human endurance.<br/>
<br/>
The winter struggle is especially intense in rural areas, where shelter and other infrastructure are often rudimentary. Wood and coal have long been used for heat.<br/>
<br/>
For example, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan—three Central Asian countries seldom mentioned in the media—rely heavily on abundant coal reserves for heat and energy.<br/>
<br/>
However, this economical energy source, along with natural gas and oil, has come under attack by international political institutions, such as the European Union and United Nations, and leftist politicians and funding entities. Armed with the pseudoscience of climate change, fearmongering opportunists are seeking to ban the fuels that are a lifeline for the people of Central Asia.<br/>
<br/>
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan generate more than 95 percent of their electricity from gas, oil, and coal. Both countries are pragmatic about future energy needs, having decided to choose energy security over climate virtue signaling.<br/>
<br/>
Uzbekistan is set to increase coal production by 22 percent and is conducting geological exploration across 31,000 square kilometers of new sites. Meanwhile, Kazakhstan is increasing oil production and plans to increase exports to Eastern Europe.<br/>
<br/>
Kyrgyzstan has more than 33 percent of its population living in poverty, making it significantly poorer than Uzbekistan (17 percent in poverty) to the west and Kazakhstan (5 percent) to the north. Half of Kyrgyzstan depends on traditional coal-fired stoves for cooking, and nearly all citizens depend on solid fuels such as wood, coal, and rubber for winter heating.<br/>
<br/>
Raw coal prices have risen so sharply that nonprofits are now giving out free coal for families in Kyrgyzstan to stay warm. In 2021, people queued for hours in freezing weather to receive coal handouts from the government.<br/>
<br/>
“In a cold winter, we burn about 5-6 [metric] tonnes,” a Kyrgyz housewife told Reuters at the time. “It is expensive for us to buy coal at 5,500 soms [$62 a tonne]. Therefore, I stand in line for three-four hours. And what are we supposed to do, freeze?”<br/>
<br/>
More than 90 percent of Kyrgyzstan’s electricity comes from hydroelectric plants. Though hydropower is a valuable resource, such high dependency on it increases the risk of power shortages in winter, which is one of the drier seasons in this relatively arid country. Kyrgyzstan supplements winter energy supplies with imported electricity from Tajikistan and Kazakhstan.<br/>
<br/>
The most obvious solution to filling its energy needs is Kyrgyzstan’s coal reserves. Undeterred by the political noise of climate change, Kyrgyzstan is embarking on an ambitious program to increase coal production with advanced technology and by privatizing mines.<br/>
<br/>
Mining has increased by around 30 percent during the past 15 years. Most of the mined coal is brown coal, or lignite, an inferior fuel that’s mostly exported. The demand for higher-quality coal is met predominantly by imports.<br/>
<br/>
To bolster the movement of electricity imports and exports, the country is investing in the 500‑kilovolt Datka-Khodjent-Sangtuda power transmission line connecting Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. There’s also a long-term partnership with Gazprom to improve gas supply in the country.<br/>
<br/>
In addition to withstanding the annual assault of winter, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan all have interests in overall security and economic development that make the exploitation of natural resources such as fossil fuels all the more important. Climate politics has no place in the frigid expanses of Central Asia<br/>
<br/>
<p class="asset asset-link">
<a href="https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/in-central-asias-brutal-winter-fossil-fuels-trump-climate-politics-5583952">https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/in-central-asias-brutal-winter-fossil-fuels-trump-climate-politics-5583952</a>
</p>
***************************************<br/>
<br/>
My other blogs. Main ones below<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://dissectleft.blogspot.com">http://dissectleft.blogspot.com</a> (DISSECTING LEFTISM )<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://edwatch.blogspot.com">http://edwatch.blogspot.com</a> (EDUCATION WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://pcwatch.blogspot.com">http://pcwatch.blogspot.com</a> (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://australian-politics.blogspot.com">http://australian-politics.blogspot.com</a> (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="https://snorphty.blogspot.com/">http://snorphty.blogspot.com/</a> (TONGUE-TIED)<br/>
<br/>
<a href="http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html">http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html</a> More blogs<br/>
<br/>
*****************************************<br/>
JRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00829082699850674281noreply@blogger.com0