Sunday, October 23, 2022



Cost of living crunch forcing shoppers to ditch green products

The cost of living crisis is forcing consumers to make less sustainable choices as prices soar, according to new research.

Six in 10 (59 per cent) shoppers say they have been forced to choose less sustainable but cheaper options as prices increase – despite wanting to make more eco-friendly choices.

This rises to 70 per cent among younger adults who are feeling the financial strain more acutely, a survey commissioned by insurer Zurich’s Youth Against Carbon initiative found.

And nearly three-quarters (74 per cent) want the government to take steps to make sustainable behaviour and products more cost-effective.

Sustainable appliances like energy-efficient lightbulbs are the most likely to be left on shelves with almost half (45 per cent) of shoppers saying they are now having to swap them for cheaper, less environmentally friendly options.

Locally sourced and organic fruits and vegetables (41 per cent) are second on the list of green items on the chopping block, followed by eco-friendly cleaning products (39 per cent).

For young people, the biggest impact is being felt on clothing purchases, with 40 per cent saying they would choose more planet-friendly fashion if it wasn’t for the cost of living crisis.

John Keppel, chief sustainability officer at Zurich UK, said: “With the impact of the current economic landscape on the general public being so stark and immediate, it’s totally understandable that people prioritise making ends meet over living greener lives.

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

Climate protesters accused of 'blood on their hands' after 2 die in crash amid traffic from bridge protest

Climate protesters in England are being accused of having "blood on their hands" after their protest scaling a bridge caused a traffic jam that reportedly kept first responders from quickly tending to two crash victims who died.

"The eco-warriors may have thought it was an innocent protest, but they’ve got blood on their hands," Mark Heap, 55, told the Daily Mail after suffering a broken back and a broken leg on Monday when he stopped to help a stranded motorist and was struck by a speeding car that was attempting to avoid a traffic jam caused by climate protesters who had scaled England’s Queen Elizabeth II bridge.

Lisa Webber, a mother of four in her 50s, was also struck by the BMW while attempting to help the stranded motorist on London’s busy M20 highway and was thrown into oncoming traffic and later died.

The Daily Mail reported that a second woman in her 40s was also struck and killed by the BMW.

Drivers were using the M20 motorway to avoid traffic backup after several "Just Stop Oil" protesters scaled the bridge causing a traffic jam that contributed to emergency vehicles taking 40 minutes to tend to crash victims.

"They may not have directly caused the M20 accident," former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector Mick Neville told The Sun. "But had their irresponsible demo not taken place, the women and van driver would probably not have been there."

"Without the protest, the emergency services might have been able to get there in time to save the women," Heap said.

Two climate activists climbed the north side of the bridge early Monday morning, saying in a press release that they were demanding that the government "halts all new oil and gas licenses and consents."

The pair of activists were on the bridge for at least 24 hours and caused two-hour delays and a 6-mile traffic jam, according to reports.

"As a professional civil engineer, each year as I renew my registration, I commit to acting within our code of ethics, which requires me to safeguard human life and welfare and the environment," 39-year-old activist Morgan Trowland said. "Our government has enacted suicidal laws to accelerate oil production: killing human life and destroying our environment. I can’t challenge this madness in my desk job, designing bridges, so I’m taking direct action, occupying the QE2 bridge until the government stops all new oil."

Just Stop Oil did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Trowland and fellow protester Marcus Decker were reportedly arrested after being brought down from the bridge on a cherry picker and charged with conspiracy to commit a public nuisance.

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

Will the energy crisis crush European industry?

As European businesses brace for energy shortages, workers at one plant in south-eastern France are getting a new winter wardrobe.

Saint-Gobain, the French building materials group, has ordered extra-warm coats and gloves for staff at its warehouse in the Alpine town of Chambéry, who have agreed to turn down the heat this winter. In order to cut gas consumption, temperatures will be closer to 8C, instead of the usual 15C.

“It will be just like working outside so we have to give them all the tools to work in an outside environment,” says Benoit d’Iribarne, senior vice-president of manufacturing.

Turning down the thermostat is no mere cost saving for many of Europe’s industrial companies as they dig in for a hard winter. With energy prices soaring to unprecedented highs after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has become a matter of survival.

Europe’s industrial base employs some 35mn people or roughly 15 per cent of the working population. The bloc’s leading industrialists warned earlier this month about the potentially devastating economic impact of the energy crisis.

“Soaring energy prices are currently precipitating an alarming decline in the competitiveness of Europe’s industrial energy consumers,” said the European Round Table for Industry in a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, and Charles Michel, head of the European Council. Without immediate action to cap prices for energy-intensive companies, “the damage will be irreparable”.

On the surface, European industrial companies are putting a brave face on it — talking about the energy-saving measures they are implementing and the other costs they are finding to cut. While some are looking to coal and other fossil fuels to get them through the winter, others talk optimistically about the green revolution that the crisis is spurring.

But there is already evidence that major companies are reducing production in some sectors because of the energy shortage, even before the winter kicks in. And executives from chemicals to fertilisers to ceramics businesses warn that they risk losing permanent market share and could be forced to move some of their production to parts of the world that can offer cheaper and more reliable energy.

The alarm bells are ringing among Europe’s politicians. “We are risking a massive deindustrialisation of the European continent,” says Alexander De Croo, Belgium’s prime minister.

Saving energy

In the meantime, companies in sectors from steel to chemicals, ceramics to papermaking, fertilisers to automotives are racing to reduce consumption both to cut crippling energy costs and to prepare for gas shortages over the winter, should governments impose rationing.

Many are finding ingenious ways to reduce energy use. French carmaker Renault, for example, is reducing the time it keeps paint hot — a process that accounts for up to 40 per cent of its gas demand.

Such innovations promise to deliver more efficient factories and processes in future. But first, these businesses have to get through the winter.

Those that could do so have increased prices. Cologne-based chemicals company Lanxess, which makes base chemicals and active ingredients for the pharmaceuticals market, increased base prices by up to 35 per cent when energy costs began to surge.

But price increases will not address the problem of gas shortages. Paper and packaging group DS Smith has ordered its factories to cut consumption by 15 per cent, a voluntary reduction agreed by EU member states in July. Machines that used to be idled between production runs will now be turned off, and thermostats turned down. “If we do things like this and turn down the thermostat from 20 to 18.5 degrees we reduce gas consumption significantly,” says Miles Roberts, chief executive.

Valeo, the French automotive supplier, has asked factories to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent, with measures such as halting production at the weekend and turning down temperatures during the week. Solvay, the Belgian chemicals company, says it is organising its factories to operate on 30 per cent less gas using alternative energy and mobile diesel-fuelled boilers.

Gas is the single most important source of energy for Europe’s industrial companies. But gas is also an important feedstock, used in the chemicals and fertiliser industries. In total, industry consumes about 27-28 per cent of the bloc’s total supply, according to Anouk Honoré, ​deputy director of the gas research programme at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies.

But it is not that easy to cut the fuel out of many industrial processes. Roughly 60 per cent of industrial gas consumption is used for high-temperature processes of 500C and above, such as glassmaking, cement or ceramics. “For lower temperature processes, there are more options to use renewable energy and heat pumps,” Honoré says.

For that reason some companies are turning to fossil fuels, in a potential setback for the EU’s green transition plans. Bayer, the German pharmaceutical and biotech company, in 2019 announced plans to move entirely to renewable energy. But it has now reactivated oil as a fuel “just in case” it is unable to meet heat needs for production.

Carmaker Volkswagen is running power plants in Wolfsburg, its largest site, with coal for the next two winters, instead of switching to gas as planned as part of its decarbonisation efforts.

Even for the lower temperature industrial processes, alternatives are unusually scarce at the moment. The summer’s drought has depleted hydropower capacity, while France’s ageing nuclear reactors are unable to meet demand due to protracted shutdowns and maintenance issues

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

Government-owned electricity generation: What could possibly go wrong?

Australian State government boss is going to close all the coal-fired power stations. Not a single word about what will happen on windless nights and overcast days

A re-elected Andrews government will take back control of the state’s electricity grid and effectively end coal-fired power generation in Victoria in little more than a ­decade through a ­re­newable energy target of 95 per cent by 2035.

Ahead of the November state election, Premier Daniel Andrews announced the new policy on Thursday, prompting warnings from energy experts that returning electricity generation to state hands could increase power prices, expose taxpayers to massive fiscal risk, and even make the government’s renewable energy targets harder to reach.

The plan was condemned by energy generators as a “back to the future” announcement and “retrograde step”, but was backed by the Electrical Trades Union as a “fantastic development” for Victoria.

It follows a joint Albanese-Andrews government “rewiring the nation” announcement earlier this week – which aims to fast-track Victorian renewable energy zones and offshore wind development – and the launch earlier this month of the NSW electricity infrastructure road map. And last month, Queensland Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk announced a $62bn energy plan, which includes a renewable energy target of 80 per cent by 2035.

Mr Andrews claimed his policy would “deliver cheaper power bills and lower greenhouse gas emissions” in a state that is currently dependent on coal for 60 per cent of its power. He also took aim at the Kennett Liberal government for selling off the SEC amid Victoria’s post-Cain-Kirner Labor government recession in the 1990s.

“The Liberals sold off public power assets to private, for-profit companies. They sold off Victoria’s essential services and sent much of the profits offshore – with the generators alone making $23bn in profits at our collective expense,” the Premier said.

The plan to revive the SEC would give Victorian taxpayers a 51 per cent stake in the commission and its wind and solar projects, at an initial cost of $1bn.

Mr Andrews said industry superannuation funds were the government’s preferred investment partners for the remaining 49 per cent.

“Unreliable, privatised coal will be replaced by clean, government-owned, renewable energy,” the Premier said.

“We’ve already taken soundings from the super industry and to say they are excited is an understatement.”

A new SEC office will be established in the Latrobe Valley town of Morwell, in Victoria’s east.

Labor is facing electoral challenges from the Greens in at least three inner city seats, and is targeting the seat of Morwell, following the retirement of independent former Nationals MP Russell Northe.

Mr Andrews announced new renewable energy targets of 65 per cent by 2030 and 95 per cent by 2035, bringing forward the government’s net-zero emissions target by five years, to 2045.

He also estimated the initiatives would increase gross state product by about $9.5bn and support 59,000 jobs through to 2035.

The Andrews government says the new SEC will be responsible for generating 4.5 gigawatts of renewable power – the equivalent replacement capacity of Loy Yang A, Victoria’s largest power station, which is being closed by AGL in 2035, a decade earlier than previously planned.

The owner of the Loy Yang B coal plant, Alinta, said its staff were shocked by Thursday’s announcement, given the generator had been due to remain open until 2047, but will now be forced to close 12 years earlier.

Alinta chief executive Jeff Dimery said the company had taken “strong steps” to prepare for the transition to renewable energy, “but we need to understand more about how the government intends to manage the cost of the expedited transition, protect communities and workers, and support us to invest in the re­placement generation required to keep the lights on in the state.

“Our immediate priority and focus will be supporting our employees at Loy Yang B who will be understandably shocked by this announcement,” Mr Dimery said.

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said the announcement, with recent statements by the federal government, Queensland and NSW, demonstrated a renewed push by state and federal governments to “renationalise” the power sector.

Mr Wood argued governments had effectively made a call that markets could not be trusted to deliver an increasingly volatile transition from coal power to clean energy.

“We just have arrived at a position where the ministers whose governments contributed to the problem have concluded that the markets cannot deliver what they want, someone has to take control and it should be them. They are probably right,” he said.

“That means that the risks now sit with governments and some combination of taxpayers and consumers.

“I suspect that, despite the claims that this will all reduce power bills, the most likely casualty will be cost – although delivering the targets might be a close second.”

Green Energy Markets analyst Tristan Edis said he suspected the policy would be “good politics as voters with rose-tinted glasses experience large hikes in their power bills, warning that state-owned power companies “can be incredibly ruthless, profit-oriented operators”.

“Some have been big blockers of emission-reduction policies. They have regularly exploited their market power (with) network charges higher than needed (because they’re) used to raising state government revenue. (They) ain’t saints,” Mr Edis tweeted.

Australian Energy Council chief Sarah McNamara said the move was a “back to the future” announcement and “retrograde step” which would damage market and investor confidence.

“The surprise announcement contains little detail but looks likely to chill private investment and see Victorian taxpayers carry the lion’s share of risk around new generation,” Ms McNamara said.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Friday, October 21, 2022


Please, someone: hit the brakes on Biden’s gas and energy nonsense

Team Biden’s energy nonsense never stops. The latest: a bizarre claim that Americans are saving money — $120 a month, or $420 million in total since summer — at the pump.

Yes, gas prices are down from their scorching-hot $5.01-per-gallon June peak to a still-painful $3.85. But, by all accounts, the main reason for the drop was that Americans reduced their driving in response to the sticker shock.

And that $3.85 is still 62% higher than when Biden took office. So there have been no savings at all.

Nearly as pathetic is Biden’s new drawdown of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve: 15 million barrels, enough to cover a puny seven-and-a-half days of reduced OPEC output.

And this will draw the reserve down to near 40-year lows. Cross your fingers it’s not needed for its actual purpose, namely in case of military emergency.

Even when the prez calls for increased domestic production — the actual solution here; unshackling the enormous capacities of American energy as his predecessor did — he plays lickspittle to Green New Dealers. We “need to responsibly increase US oil production,” Biden postured Wednesday. “Responsibly” here means “not at all.”

All this after the Saudis wouldn’t play nice with Biden over oil output (maybe because he vowed to make the kingdom a “pariah” state and cozies up to Iran). Even now, his main idea is to burn foreign oil, as if Saudi or Venezuelan oil is somehow better for the environment.

Yet more proof Biden’s energy policies are as nonsensical as . . . everything else he argues for. And as damaging to average Americans and the nation.

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

Earth records 600 millionth consecutive cooler-than-average month

The Earth just had its 600 millionth straight cooler-than-average month thanks to naturally-driven cooling.

An historical reconstruction of the Earth’s temperature by Northwestern University Adjunct Professor Dr. Christopher Scotese provides an illuminating and surprising comparison of today’s temperatures to that of the past. And it’s not what you think.

According to Dr. Scotese the Earth “has alternated between a frigid ‛Ice House’, like today’s world, and a steaming ‛Hot House’, like the world of the dinosaurs.”

That’s correct, he described today’s temperatures as frigid. It turns out that most of Earth’s history since the explosion of life in the Cambrian Period nearly 600 million years ago was hotter than our climate today — a lot hotter.

Scotese 2002 - An analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras.
Scotese 2002 – An analysis of the temperature oscillations in geological eras.
For fully two-thirds of that time the Earth experienced temperatures that were much warmer than today. During these periods of “Hot House” conditions there was no ice at either pole. We “only” entered our current “Ice House” conditions about 50 million years ago. Using the average temperature of the Earth for the last 600 million years, we have experienced 50 million consecutive years of below average temperature.

While factually correct and, for a climate geek and geologist like myself, quite interesting, this information has nothing to do with the current climate debate.

And neither does a headline-grabbing report (For 420 straight months, Earth has been…blazin’) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that the planet had its 420th consecutive month with above-average temperature. Bear in mind that the “average temperature” they were referring to was that of the 20thcentury. Well, duh.

Of course recent temperatures would be higher than the 20th century average. That is because the Earth’s temperature has been increasing for more than 300 years. Had NOAA used a 300-year average they could have added even more months of above-average temperatures because the average would have been even lower.

The blessed rise of temperature that we are experiencing is lifting us out of the death-dealing cold of the horrific Little Ice Age, when half the population of Iceland perished. The beginning of this warming started in the late 1600s, long before man could have had any effect on temperature. In fact, the rate of warming over the first 40 years of the trend, extending into the early 1700s, was several times the rate of the 20th century warming and was 100 percent naturally driven.

At least the first 150 years of our current warming were also entirely naturally-driven and contributed about the same amount of warming as the last 150 or so years during which we have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

The question is not whether the planet is warming. It is, and demonstrably so. We know this from both direct measurement and thousands of historical records.

The real question is did the natural forces that were driving the temperature increase in the 17thcentury, or for that matter over the last hundreds of millions of years, suddenly stop for some reason in the 20th century? Of course not, but that is what the Ayatollahs of Alarmism want you to believe.

So why the media firestorm and portrayal of the latest data as dangerous? H. L. Mencken warned us of imaginary “hobgoblins of alarm” that governments needed to create to frighten the population into accepting onerous regulations such as the Paris Climate Accords. Climate change today is one of those hobgoblins of alarm used to convince people that our current warming is “unusual and unprecedented” when it is neither.

Six hundred million months of below average temperature or 420 months of above average temperature? Both are true, depending on what metric you choose to use, but the media are publicizing what is designed to best promote fear of catastrophic climate alarm. We have seen in the recent COVID-19 pandemic that fear is one of the most potent motivators of public action. Those promoting the economically destructive green policies will be using this and any other event deemed out of the ordinary to further the climate of fear that they need for public acceptance of these harmful policies.

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

Atmospheric Phenomena, Climate Science Manipulation, and Earth's Cooling: Eleven Important Atmospheric Phenomena
(from a physicist's perspective)


by Gordon Fulks, Ph.D. (Gordon Fulks received both his M.S. and Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Chicago)

Our knowledge of the physical phenomena contributing to climate is vast.

Adiabatic cooling (gravity)

Planck Heat Radiation

Properties of water, its abundance and high heats of vaporization and fusion.

Elastic Mie/Raleigh Scattering (clouds and blue sky)

Inelastic Raman Scattering (thermalizing, greenhouse effect)

Oceans (heat sink and source)

Convection/Advection

Two fluid problem with neither in equilibrium

Coriolis Effect with a circumpolar jet stream and large amplitude Rossby waves

Solar Cycles - Wilson Cloud Chamber/Svensmark amplification effects with cosmic rays

Milankovitch Cycles

But which dominate in particular situations is far from understood.

Attempts to combine these effects and keep track of everything that is going on are called 'Computer Simulations' or 'Climate Models.' Unfortunately, computer simulations of climate are just computer games USELESS in accurately predicting the future.

Professor of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Gerhard Gerlich said:

“To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare Mankind to death is a crime.”

“It cannot be overemphasized that even if the [fluid] equations are simplified considerably, one cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals."

Email from newsletter@co2coalition.org

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

Australia: New coal mine approved

The Department of Regional Development, Manufacturing and Water has granted New Acland Coal its water licence, clearing the way for the mine to reopen and for New Hope Group to start hiring hundreds of staff.

The decision comes about a month after it was granted a mining lease.

The water licence comes with 35 strict conditions, including that NAC offsets underground water impacted by mining activities by surrendering equivalent water entitlements.

It must also monitor the impacts on aquifers and groundwater users, implement an underground water monitoring program to track any impacts that may occur and publish the volume of underground water taken.

New Acland Coal general manager Dave O’Dwyer said the mood at the site was ecstatic. “It is great news,” he said. “When the head office rang me up this afternoon I was a bit taken aback,” he said.

Mr O’Dywer said the team had some environmental processes to move through before he could hire new staff. ‘We are hoping within a few months we’ll be moving dirt,” he said

“We have worked so hard to get this far and there has been huge support from the community and through our expressions of interest portal.

About 800 people have put their hand up to work at the mine, with the vast majority coming from the Darling Downs.

All the water used at the site will be trucked in from the Wetalla Waste Water Treatment Plant in Cranley.

The water licence governs the incidental interaction with groundwater.

Mr O’Dwyer said while he expected the licence would be approved, he didn’t think it would happen so soon.

“We have had some interaction with the department talking about some things but we didn’t expect it to happen so quickly,” he said.

“We wanted to be sure the department went through its due diligence and we are really happy it has worked through that process and come forward with an answer for us.”

In December 2021, Queensland’s Land Court recommended the granting of the mining leases and issuing of a draft amended Environmental Authority for the Stage 3 development, subject to certain conditions being met.

Earlier this year NAC was granted a mining lease for Stage 3, which will see operations run for at least 10 years and employ an estimated 600 workers during construction and 400 during operation. It also means the area of mined land will roughly double.

The final approval comes after a 15-year battle between the mine’s owner New Hope Group and a collection Oakey farmers and residents.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Thursday, October 20, 2022



How more green space could narrow lifespan gap between rich and poor (?)

This study is an all-round joke. I have critiqued many others like it over the years so I will just make the most obvious comment here. How do we know that the causal arrow is not reversed? Could healthier people be better able to move into leafy areas? Healthy people presumably earn more than sickly people so can afford accomodation in more desirable areas.

Controls for income could have been attempted to rule out that possibilty but no controls of any sort appear to have been attempted. It's amazing the unscholarly rubbish that get into the academic journals these days


Greater levels of access to green spaces could have a sufficiently dramatic impact on people’s health that it could help reduce current lifespan gaps between the rich and the poor, new research shows.

A study examining various geographic areas, levels of wealth, and the proximity to private gardens and natural spaces such as woodlands, heathlands, and open water, found that each 10 per cent increase in access to private gardens and natural space is linked to a 7 per cent fall in the incidence of early death among those under 65 years old.

The research team, led by Dr Natalie Nicholls at the University of Glasgow, said their findings "could provide an additional public-health tool to reduce the large health inequities that exist for deprived populations, indigenous peoples, and other ethnic minorities".

While there is a large body of evidence already linking spending time in natural environments with positive health outcomes, the research is the first to explicitly examine whether access to nature protects against an earlier than expected death.

In order to assess whether this is the case, the team used the measure of "years of life lost" (YLL), and drew on YLL data from the 2016 Scottish Burden of Disease report, which recorded the gap between expected and actual lifespan for men and women under 65 who were resident in Scotland, UK, at time of death.

The team then mapped out various "datazones", which plotted geographical areas of between 500-1,000 households each, using physical boundaries and natural communities, which they said ended up dividing areas into units with broadly similar social characteristics.

Using Ordnance Survey mapping, they then assessed the inhabitants of each datazone’s access to natural space or private gardens, measured in square metres.

The researchers found that the areas with the highest income deprivation also had the lowest average percentage cover of natural space and gardens. People living in these areas had the highest levels of ill health.

Increased availability of natural space within local areas was also associated with a reduction in the disparity in YLL between the most and least deprived areas.

"Even moderate levels of natural space seemed to make a difference," the team said.

“In practice, not everyone can live in an area with a high percentage of green or natural space; however, this does not mean that even small amounts of such areas are not beneficial,” they said in the paper, published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health – a title published by the British Medical journal.

But the research team cautioned that their observational study can’t establish cause and effect.

They also acknowledged that they didn’t have information on individual lifestyle behaviour and personal economic circumstances, or how much people used their local natural space or its quality, all of which may have influenced their findings.

Nonetheless, they said their findings echo those of other studies.

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

It was the energy bailout that blew up Trussonomics

Truss and Kwarteng must have thought it didn't count because it was a political imperative – but it doomed the project from the very start

Liz Truss has done many about-turns – on regional pay boards; corporation tax not rising; income tax being cut from 2023; the top rate being abolished. But far and away her biggest was announced immediately upon her becoming Prime Minister. Having stood on a platform of “no handouts” in response to the energy crisis, relying instead on a mix of benefits rises, short-term tax cuts and allowing market forces such as wage rises to do their job, as soon as she became Prime Minister she abandoned that stance and instead announced an absolutely massive energy price package.

By ministers’ own statements, the household element of that energy package alone was saving the average family around £4,000 per year. With over 25 million such families, that’s a bill of over £100 billion per year. Then there was the business energy package as well – perhaps £60 billion more.

And not only was this hugely expensive each year, it was in practice open-ended unless energy prices fell back dramatically. The household scheme was scheduled to last for two years, but that meant it would expire in late 2024, just before a General Election was due. No-one believed the Government would suddenly tell households their energy bills were going up by £4,000 just weeks before an election. So of course it would have been extended – perhaps made permanent.

Maybe one might have hoped the Government would find some way to curtail the cost once it realised the problem? But ministers immediately made that harder, tweeting out graphs showing that the UK’s energy package was much larger than those implemented in other countries – boasting of it in such a way that it would be even harder, politically, ever to backtrack from it.

So the Government had hundreds of billions of fiscal exposure in the energy package, in principle potentially lasting for many years ahead. Then, rather than say how any of that was to be paid for, they announced they were implementing all the short-term tax cuts Truss had said were the alternative to having an energy package during her leadership campaign. The energy package alone meant that there would need to be a huge fiscal consolidation – spending cuts and tax rises exceeding £100 billion, perhaps eventually even larger than those implemented in the 2010s. And with Labour way ahead in the polls, no Tory fiscal consolidation would ever be implemented anyway. It wouldn’t start in 2023 during the recession. It wouldn’t start in 2024 in the run-up to the General Election. And a Tory plan wouldn’t get implemented from 2025, because the Tories wouldn’t be in government by then.

So markets were being asked to fund hundreds of billions of extra deficit (mainly in the form of the energy package) with no-one even going to announce how it would be paid for until Labour entered office in 2025. Understandably, they took fright. This happened at the same time other issues were festering, including the Bank of England being too slow to raise interest rates, then announcing quantitative tightening at just the wrong moment, and pension funds getting into trouble with fancy financial instruments called “swaps”.

It was all a mess. But the biggest part of that mess – the Original Sin of Trussonomics – was that energy package. And even when there was massive market turmoil and Kwarteng started reversing elements of his mini-Budget, they still didn’t seem to grasp the real issue – as if some nonsense about the 45p rate, costing maybe £1.5 billion, was the real issue and the energy package, costing over £150 billion, was not. They didn’t circumscribe the energy package in any way – either in time (making it more credible it would end) or in scope (eg by no longer subsidising millionaires for heating their swimming pools). And the turmoil continued.

Only when Jeremy Hunt – acting, as some Twitter wags pointed out, like an IT guy switching the UK finances off and back on again – came in and ditched almost everything about the mini-Budget, including saying that Truss’ energy package would end after 6 months, has market stability been restored, at least for now.

I suspect that, because Truss and Kwarteng felt that the energy package was a political imperative, they thought it somehow “didn’t count” in the deficit, and they could do whatever other measures they fancied regardless of the fact they had introduced it and didn’t need any story as to how they paid for it. Financial markets have taught them, brutally and pitilessly, that that is not how these things work.

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

New paper shows glaring discrepancies between IPCC science and public statements

A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals how sober factual information in official climate reports is steadily distorted in moving from the original text (written by scientists), to the Summary for Policymakers (written by political hacks), to the official press releases (written by public relations officials), and then to the media coverage (written by journalists).

The paper, by physicist Dr Ralph Alexander, looks at two specific areas of the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report: reconstructions of global temperatures over the last two millennia, and the coverage of marine heatwaves.

Dr Alexander explains:

"Take the global temperature reconstructions. The political hacks introduced Michael Mann's famous Hockey Stick graph into the Summary for Policymakers, even though this was not even mentioned by the scientists in the report itself. This graph is then used by the press officers to claim that current temperatures are 'unprecedented', but the scientists who wrote the original report said nothing of the sort, and indeed reported data that would contradict such a claim".

GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:

"Ralph Alexander's paper is a revelation, demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that the public are being failed by IPCC officials and the news media. The message is clear. You can't trust the habitual hype and exaggeration the green establishment would like you to believe on climate."

Ralph B. Alexander: "Chinese Whispers: How climate science gets distorted in translation" (pdf)

Contact

Dr Ralph Alexander
e: ralexander@ameritech.net

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

The Bank of England's main priority? Net Zero targets

Energy companies looking to take advantage of the Bank of England's latest support package will have to meet climate conditions, the central bank and Treasury announced today.

The new Energy Markets Financing Scheme (EMFS), formally launched today, will provide government-backed guarantees to energy generators, shippers or suppliers facing financial trouble in the wake of soaring gas prices following the Ukraine war,

In a market notice published this morning, the Bank of England confirmed that to be eligible for funding, companies must disclose whether they have a net zero transition plan and, if so, deliver it to the Treasury within six months of drawdown of funds, or before termination of the guarantee.

Within the same timeframe, firms must also deliver "proportionate climate-related financial information" aligned with the recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures the Exchequer, according to the update.

The Bank of England and Treasury said the joint scheme had been designed to "address the extraordinary liquidity requirements" faced by energy firms operating in UK gas and electricity markets.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Wednesday, October 19, 2022




Hole in the ozone layer has grown for a 3rd year in a row — but scientists aren’t concerned

Greenies are good at distorted views of the facts. So their mention of the 2015 ozone hole is interesting. They admit but downplay the fact that in October 2015 the Antarctic ozone hole was at that time the largest it had ever been. And it is apparently still large.

How does that square with the supposed shrinking of the hole? Refrigerant gases that supposedly open the hole have been banned for decades. So what we should see on Greenie theory is a gradual shrinking of the hole. It's clearly not happening. All we actually see is natural variability: No progress in shrinking the hole at all


The ozone hole that forms yearly over Antarctica has grown for the third year in a row. At nearly 10 million square miles (26.4 million square kilometers), the ozone hole is the largest it's been since 2015.

But despite that growth, scientists say that the hole's size is still on a downward trend overall.

"All the data says that ozone is on the mend," Paul Newman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's chief Earth scientist, told the Associated Press(opens in new tab).

The ozone hole was first observed in the early 1980s and reached its largest extent in 2006, according to NASA. This year’s ozone hole, which peaked on Oct. 5, was the biggest recorded since 2015. But scientists aren’t too concerned.

"The overall trend is improvement. It's a little worse this year because it was a little colder this year," Newman told the AP.

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

A Governor Who Understands That Woke Corporations Undermine American Interests

“ESG is kind of rewriting how you invest. Instead of focusing on value for your shareholders, it’s more of a political agenda.”

These are the prudent words of Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt about environmental, social, and corporate governance standards, dubbed ESG, which are nonfinancial yardsticks applied to firms and used by money managers in decision-making on investments.

With clarity, Stitt, a Republican, further noted in a Fox News interview this week that corporate use of ESG standards “breaks down the free market principles of capitalism that we’re used to in investing, and so it’s anti-American.”

Indeed, ESG is the Left’s (and its corporate enablers’) blatant mugging of our free-market economy, which has generated prosperity by creating more and greater opportunities than any economic system in history.

The ESG agenda insists that policymakers and private-sector leaders see themselves as the stewards of a newly “woke” planet. In actuality, it’s a way to force companies to take positions in the political arena on issues that may have nothing to do with their actual business activities.

The true path to ensuring environmental, social, and governance improvements lies in focusing on policies that enhance economic freedom. As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom, the linkage of economic freedom, individual liberty, and prosperity around the world is unambiguous. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.)

This prosperity is not just an end in itself. As the Index of Economic Freedom catalogues, preserving and advancing economic freedom enables individuals, entrepreneurs, and companies to care better for the poor and the environment, create better health care and education systems, ensure an abundance of food and clean water, and solve many other societal problems to make life better for a greater number of people.

Regrettably, under the tent of ESG activism, corporations around the globe have become woke. These corporations have weaponized capital, promoting a left-wing policy agenda.

Perhaps the not-so-surprising unfolding reality is that the environmental, social, and governance agenda largely is failing to produce what it promises in investment returns and positive impact. A recent Financial Times commentary headlined “Forget ESG. Bring on the BS Index” pointed this out in a witty, sarcastic way:

The jig is up for ESG. Regulators are swarming. Investor enthusiasm is waning. Executives are revolting. For the armies of asset managers, data providers, consultants and advisers that have sprung up in the past 10 years this is an existential threat. Here is our solution: pivot to bullshit. … Identifying BS is subjective but can be inferred with the help of several analytical frameworks, all of which can be used to charge more fees to companies and investors. Just like ESG.

Ill-guided and politically driven agendas such as ESG indeed present clear and present perils. And it’s people who seem to get lost in all of this.

For instance, under ESG, traditional American energy sources such as oil and gas are punished as part of the Left’s climate alarmism. Customers pay higher prices and receive inferior goods and services as companies become more focused on “social justice” than meeting the customers’ needs.

Stitt, Oklahoma’s governor, is right to point out that companies that embrace the environmental, social, and governance agenda are “not having an honest conversation about the needs of Americans.”

As underscored by Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action for America, at the launch of “ESG Hurts,” a new campaign by The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action:

The United States leads the world in innovation and economic opportunity because of the policies we put in place to empower our businesses and individuals. If we allow the left to use ESG to turn businesses into social justice tools and shareholder reports into social credit scores, our economy will suffer and our adversaries like China will succeed.

It should be noted that economic freedom—not the environmental, social, and governance agenda—makes America and the world cleaner, safer, and better governed. It’s not hard to find the economic damage inflicted by heavy-handed and misguided government policies, which result in lingering uncertainty, deteriorating entrepreneurial environments, and lower employment growth.

The year 2022 should mark the end of that unacceptable trend and the beginning of restoring America’s economic freedom.

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

China to prioritise energy security over transition to renewables, Xi Says

President Xi Jinping has promised a slow and steady end to the growth of planet-warming emissions in China, with energy security taking top priority as the country contends with a flagging economy and tumult on global fuel markets.

In a two-hour speech to kick off the weeklong Communist Party Congress, Xi said that prudence would govern China’s efforts to peak and eventually zero out carbon emissions. The cautious wording comes after a spate of high-profile power shortages in recent years, and as global energy costs have soared after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended trade flows.

Xi’s speech made China’s path to decarbonization clear: It won’t stop burning fossil fuels until it’s confident that clean energy can reliably replace them. The speech shows more emphasis on energy security and the significant role of coal in China’s energy supply given the resources endowment, said Qin Yan, lead analyst with Refinitiv.

“We will work actively and prudently toward the goals of reaching peak carbon emissions and carbon neutrality,” Xi said in his address. “Based on China’s energy and resource endowments, we will advance initiatives to reach peak carbon emissions in a well-planned and phased way, in line with the principle of getting the new before discarding the old.”

China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and Xi electrified climate activists two years ago when he vowed to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 after peaking emissions before 2030. The announcement sparked a massive surge in investment in clean energy by local governments and state-owned firms.

But last year focus began to return to China’s mainstay fuel of coal after a shortage triggered widespread power curtailments to factories, slowing economic growth. The country vowed to increase mining capacity, and production has risen to record levels this year, keeping storage sites well stocked and reducing imports.

China will also expand exploration and development of oil and gas resources, and increase reserves and production as part of the measures to ensure energy security, according to a congress work report released after Xi’s speech.

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

Major finance firms tell UK they won’t phase out fossil fuel

Some of the world’s biggest financial firms including BlackRock Inc. and Vanguard Group Inc. have told the UK they have no plans to halt the financing of new fossil-fuel supplies, in response to a list of questions sent by British lawmakers tasked with figuring out how the country can meet its own net-zero obligations.

The inquiry is being led by the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons. Britain, which was successfully sued by a group of climate activists earlier this year for putting forward an unclear net-zero plan, has asked firms to explain how they’re incorporating science-based requirements to phase out and ultimately halt the financing of new fossil-fuel supply, according to a statement published on Tuesday.

The Committee expects the finance sector “will play a significant role in helping determine whether the UK Government’s carbon budgets and its net zero target are likely to be met,” it said. Responses, which weren’t summarized by the Committee, were sent by more than 30 of the world’s biggest banks and investment managers.

BlackRock underlined that it is “obligated to always act in our clients’ financial best interests,” in its response. The firm also said its overall approach to the energy transition doesn’t include fossil-fuel exclusion policies, and that it doesn’t support the International Energy Agency’s net-zero scenario, which calls for no investment in new fossil-fuel supplies.

ESG is one of the largest, and most debated, investment approaches in markets today. Share your views on it. Take Bloomberg’s ESG survey. It’s not long, and we don’t collect your name or any contact information. Please click here to take the survey.

BlackRock’s goal “is not to engineer a specific decarbonization outcome in the real economy,” it said. And, like other firms surveyed, BlackRock said it’s the role of governments to set targets for private-sector actors. The asset manager also said it expects to remain a long-term investor in carbon-intensive sectors “on behalf of our clients.”

Vanguard provided a similar response, saying it “does not dictate strategy and operations in portfolio companies, and therefore does not have an enterprise view of the IEA net zero scenario and its recommendations for ‘no new investment.”’

The UK initiative to gather responses comes less than a month before world leaders are set to gather for the COP27 climate summit in Egypt.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Tuesday, October 18, 2022



British Labour Party pledges to ban fracking 'once and for all'

Labour has pledged to ban fracking “once and for all”, calling it “an unjust charter for earthquakes”.

The party is working to bring forward an opposition day motion to maintain the ban on the controversial gas extraction method, after Liz Truss said she would lift it as part of her energy security plan.

The moratorium on fracking was imposed by the Conservatives in 2019 after a series of tremors, and their manifesto that year said they would not support it "unless the science shows categorically that it can be done safely".

Fracking involves injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks and boreholes to force open existing cracks and extract oil or gas.

A government-commissioned report by the British Geological Survey at the time said more data was needed, but despite the lack of scientific progress, Ms Truss's administration has torn up the manifesto commitment.

Ed Miliband, the shadow climate secretary, will visit Bassetlaw, Nottinghamshire, on Friday to meet the party's candidate Jo White and residents to listen to concerns about the possibility of fracking in their area.

"Labour will stand with communities in opposing the Conservatives' dodgy plans to impose expensive, dirty, and dangerous fracking on the British people," he said.

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

New trend has teens dumping out milk in grocery stores

All across the United Kingdom, teenagers concerned about the environment are doing "milk pours." The new trend involves going into grocery stores, picking up cartons of cow-produced milk, and pouring out their contents, according to the animal rights group Animal Rebellion.

Videos that have popped up on social media show teens pouring milk onto the floor, over sales counters, and elsewhere in the store.

"The dairy industry is incredibly environmentally destructive. The world’s top 5 meat and dairy corporations are now responsible for more GHG emissions than Exxon, Shell or BP," the organization said in a tweet Saturday. "We NEED a plant based future now," it added.

The account also shared a report from Grain, an international non-profit organization, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), which calls for the planet to "dramatically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions" by eliminating meat and dairy consumption.

According to Animal Rebellion, the "milk pours" took place at eight different locations Saturday, including London, Manchester, Norwich, and Edinburgh.

"Animal farming is THE leading cause of the loss of our wildlife and natural ecosystems," the group said in another tweet, which also called for the government to "support farmers in an urgent transition to a plant based food system and allow the freed up land to be rewilded in order to restore wildlife populations."

Several countries around the world have imposed regulations on the agriculture industry, such as limits on nitrogen emissions caused by dairy production. Environmentalists have encouraged the use of dairy alternatives, such as almond, soy, coconut and oat milk, though these too have been criticized.

The Biden administration has indicated that it intends to push changes on the US farming industry to tackle climate change.

In 2020, the EPA estimated that 11% of the U.S.'s total greenhouse gas emissions came from the agriculture sector, compared to 27% from transportation, 25% from energy, and 24% from industry.

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

If Biden was actually concerned about high oil prices, he would prioritize more oil drilling

By Robert Romano

President Joe Biden is still reeling from the decision earlier this month by OPEC to curtail global oil production as the world prepares for another recession after Covid, induced by inflation levels not seen since the 1970s and 1980s as the post-Covid supply crunch and the war in Ukraine continue.

With less than a month to go before the Congressional midterm elections — every seat in the House and one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election on Nov. 8 — the Biden administration had been lobbying Saudi Arabia to boost production even as prices have already fallen from their highs of $120 in June after the war began. Light Sweet Crude stands at about $85 as of this writing.

The trouble is, with inflation still north of 8 percent in the U.S., Biden needed the perception that something is being done, somewhere, to increase production. Just not here. That is because he is obeying two masters, the American people and the environmentalist interests that have similarly locked up future U.S. energy production in favor of green alternatives including electric vehicles.

And yet, even there, production is worse than that of fossil fuels, with months-long waiting lists for battery-powered cars and trucks.

That is because, during Covid when much of the global economy was locked down, production was forestalled across the board, resulting in months-long delays for basic orders in supply chains when demand picked up sooner than expected. So, even though petroleum was made more scarce — U.S. oil production is still 9 percent below its peak Dec. 2019 levels of 402 million barrels a month — so was everything else, with the result being higher prices across the board.

The limits on U.S. oil production are largely self-imposed — producible leases on federal lands were down 2.4 percent in 2021 compared to 2019 — as advanced economies have been attempting to transition to net-zero carbon footprints.

Another major factor are Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing incentives that have successfully pushed U.S. oil companies to restrict future production. ESG investing has increased dramatically the past decade via private retirement funds regulated under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) thanks to a regulation by the Obama Labor Department in 2015.

Additionally, the $762 billion federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for federal employee retirees began investing in ESG funds in 2022, following state government employee retirement funds in California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland and Oregon.

A group of 19 Republican Attorneys General led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson have threatened the $10 trillion hedge fund BlackRock with antitrust legal action in an Aug. 4 letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink accusing the company of “intentionally restrain[ing] and harm[ing] the competitiveness of the energy markets” with its market dominance of retirement investments.

Brnovich and Peterson added, “coordinated conduct with other financial institutions to impose net-zero [carbon emissions by 2050] … raises antitrust concerns. Group boycotts, restraining trade, or concerted refusals to deal, ‘clearly run afoul of’ Section 1 of the Sherman Act [according to the Supreme Court]. Section 1 prohibits ‘[e]very … combination … , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.’ Regarding the definition of a ‘combination,’ the Supreme Court has held that this language prohibits ‘concerted action.’”

A follow-up letter has also been sent by the group of 19 Attorneys General to the Securities and Exchange Commission, declaring “BlackRock’s past public commitments indicate that it has used citizens’ assets to pressure companies to comply with international agreements such as the Paris Agreement that force the phase-out of fossil fuels, increase energy prices, drive inflation, and weaken the national security of the United States.”

These are two things that Biden had a lot of control over: Leases on federal lands are down and ESG retirement investment regulations have only been increased in his time in office, with both the Labor Department and the SEC institutionalizing ESG incentives rather than reducing them.

The idea is to reduce America’s carbon output. Biden has been telling the world we want less oil for years now. Now, with the global economy circling the drain into another recession he’s surprised that the global oil producers like Saudi Arabia are listening.

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

Australian government betting nation's economic future on renewable energy delusion

You don’t have to be a climate sceptic to conclude that the government’s energy policy is bonkers. You just have to listen to the Energy Minister’s words. Last week, Chris Bowen outlined the challenge of meeting Labor’s 2030 emissions reduction target to a conference in Sydney. Reducing emissions by 43 per cent will require the installation of 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines every month from now until 2030, each one as tall as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It will require more than 22,000 500-watt solar panels to be installed every day for the next eight years, 2.4 for every man, woman and child in total. New solar farms would cover an area dozens of times larger than the Melbourne CBD.

All this supposes we can buy the things in the first place. Polysilicon wafers are in short supply and 95 per cent come from China.

Let’s not even get started on the pink batts question. The rooftop solar installation business is plagued with the same shonky operators that turn up like wasps to a barbecue when subsidised, government mega-projects are announced.

Last month, the Clean Energy Regulator started investigations against a Perth company accused of fraudulently claiming $1.5m in solar panel installation rebates. NSW Fire and Rescue attended 151 solar panel fires in 2020-21, up from 56 in the previous year, faulty isolation switches being the main cause.

Jeff Dimery, the head of Alinta who has had somewhat more experience in the energy game than Bowen, says we’re on course for an energy transition “train wreck”.

“I personally don’t believe we can achieve the transition based on what we’re seeing to date,” Dimery told the AFR last week. “I think we’re headed for failure.”

Anthony Albanese was elected on a promise to cut household energy bills by $275 in his first term. A survey by Compass Polling last month found 70 per cent of Australians don’t believe him. Last week Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb told a parliamentary committee household energy bills had risen by $300 since April.

Dimery predicts energy costs will rise by at least 35 per cent in 2023. Jim Chalmers says energy is the most “problematic aspect of our inflation problem over the course of the next six or nine months”.

Yet Bowen stood as steady as the legless Black Knight in a Monty Python movie last week, refusing to budge. He told the conference that “getting more renewables in the system will mean lower power prices”. He added: “I don’t think that should be such a controversial statement in Australia in 2022.”

Bowen is betting the future of the economy on his counterintuitive assumption that a transition from hydrocarbons to solar, wind and batteries will bring the cost of energy down.

In every country that has gone down this path, the very opposite has occurred. Even before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, energy prices had risen between 60 per cent and 100 per cent in Britain and Germany since renewable investment began at the start of the century. In Australia, energy prices fell for 60 years until the start of the renewable era. Now they’re rising.

Bowen hasn’t said when the correlation between rising investment in weather-dependent zero-carbon energy and rising prices will start to reverse. He does, however, stand by the modelling he commissioned in opposition, which predicts that the average household energy bill will fall by $385 once we reach the magic 82 per cent renewables share in the energy grid in eight years’ time.

Rising electricity prices aren’t all bad news, according to Guardian Australia, which reported last week that sales of household solar arrays were through the roof. To illustrate what good news this supposedly is, the Guardian claimed rooftop solar supplied almost three-quarters of WA’s total energy demand on the weekend before last. Confirmation-biased reporting like this demands a little fact checking.

The Australian Energy Market Operator’s records show rooftop solar supplied 71 per cent of demand in WA at 12.30pm on Saturday, October 8. Between 6pm Saturday and 6am on Sunday, however, rooftop solar was supplying 0 per cent. During that period three-quarters of the power was supplied by coal and gas.

The answer to this little hiccup, as every Guardian Australia reader knows, is to install batteries, which, as every Guardian reader also knows, are getting cheaper by the minute.

The cost is falling so fast that electric cars and vans will be cheaper to buy than petrol or diesel vehicles by 2027, the newspaper reported in May last year. In February this year, however, economic reality reared its ugly head. “Gone ballistic” read the Guardian’s headline. “Lithium price rockets nearly 500% in a year amid electric vehicle rush.”

The cost of installing a Tesla Powerwall, a domestic energy storage unit the size of a fridge, has risen from less than $10,000 in 2017 to about $19,000 today.

None of this should surprise. Improved technology and manufacturing efficiency gains were only going to push battery prices downwards for so long. The International Energy Agency has analysed the cost of moving from a fuel-intensive energy system to a material-intensive one. Far from eliminating hydrocarbons, the IEA forecasts, the demand for minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, copper and rare earths will rise by 4200 per cent, 2500 per cent, 1900 per cent and 700 per cent respectively by 2040.

If nothing else destroys the delusion that renewable energy offers nothing but healing kindness to a desiccated planet, the rapacious hunger for minerals surely must. In an influential recent paper for the Manhattan Institute, Mark P. Mills predicts that meeting the world’s transition goals will require dozens of new mines for each of a dozen classes of minerals, each at the scale of some of the biggest mines in the world today and each requiring tens of billions of dollars of investment.

“The lessons of the recent decade make it clear that SWB (solar, wind, batteries) technologies cannot be surged in times of need, are neither inherently ‘clean’ nor even independent of hydrocarbons, and are not cheap,” Mills writes.

Having set Australia’s 2030 and 2050 emissions targets in stone, it falls on Bowen and Anthony Albanese to produce plan B. Assuming, of course, they have one.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Monday, October 17, 2022



UK: No growth while Net Zero is in place

Energy costs will close two major ‘green’ manufacturing operations

* BMW is moving manufacturing of the electric Mini from the UK to China where manufacturing is powered by cheap coal.

* Britishvolt, a major battery manufacturing startup, is on the brink of collapse.

Both companies have cited high energy prices as the reason for their problems.

Claims that the UK’s economy will be based around ‘green industries’ are clearly false.

* Manufacturing of renewables and EVs will be built in places where energy is cheap, which means places where it is derived from fossil fuels.

* European wind turbine manufacturers are financially struggling and cutting jobs, losing market share to Chinese competitors benefiting from cheap coal.

* Net Zero is driving the wholesale deindustrialisation of Britain which threatens to make the UK uninvestable.

The economic crisis can only be solved by cheap energy

* There will be no economic growth without cheap energy.

* Cheap energy can only be delivered through increased supply of fossil fuels and nuclear, and elimination of renewables.

Net Zero plans must be cancelled as a matter of urgency.

Net Zero is unattainable and a danger to national well-being

Contact

Dr Benny Peiser
Director, Net Zero Watch
e: benny.peiser@netzerowatch.com
m: 07553 361717

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

Climate criminals

If an ordinary person walks up to a priceless work of art in a gallery and either glues themselves to the glass casing or throws food over it, they are arrested and fined – but if you vandalise art in the name of ‘climate’ you get to grace the headlines of the world’s Woke publications and bask in the gratitude of renewables barons and billionaire CEOs who stand to make a fortune from these childish antics.

Oh, and you might get a slap on the wrist if the cops manage to drag themselves away from policing wrong-think on social media.

When we say there is a ‘Culture War’ going on, conservatives didn’t realise that the physical treasures of Western culture would find themselves lobbed into the frenzy of misguided youth activism incited by communist lecturers still sore that their preferred ideology killed more people last century than Hitler.

It’s tricky, you see, to be a virtuous social warrior when the heroes of collectivism are all mass-murdering psychopaths. I imagine it’s also tough to reignite a Marxist revolution when the university-educated ‘working class’ use an underclass of UberEats drivers to summon their soy lattes, paid for by mummy’s credit card. They’re not exactly ‘workers’ so they’ve been re-imagined as terribly oppressed victims. There was nothing else left in Pandora’s Box of bad ideas.

Just Stop Oil – the group targeting art galleries – is a UK activist outfit founded in February of 2022 and funded largely by the American-based Climate Emergency Fund (CEF). There’s some heavy irony that the founder of CEF is quoted in a World Economic Forum article discussing the pressures of ‘climate anxiety’ – a phenomenon caused almost entirely by organisations telling children the world is going to end.

Groups like Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, (and most of our politicians?) share cult-like doomsday rhetoric, quoting various ‘climate scientists’ who insist the world will either end or pass an irreversible moment of destruction in three or four years if we don’t agree to their demands. Conscripting impressionable young people into what amounts to a death cult used to be a matter for child protection services, now it forms the cornerstone of mainstream education.

There are thousands of these climate groups, continuously spawning and dying, shifting shells and shuffling their finances around – partly to hide the reality that their claims never come true, but also because it makes it more difficult to see who is behind them and how much money they are making from their ‘give us money or you’ll all die’ pleas.

The Christian Climate Action group assures us that the Just Stop Oil campaign is necessary. Oddly, their website is branded with the Extinction Rebellion logo topped by a cross – just as Rome is littered with Egyptian Obelisks with the same gesture.

‘Following our January gathering in Birmingham, and a recent zoom meeting with Roger Hallam, a growing number of people in CCA are feeling drawn to sign up for Just Stop Oil. The need for civil disobedience is greater than ever, as the world moves ever further towards climate disaster. Some have already signed up to take part in the action itself, others are acting in an admin / back office capacity, but whatever way you choose to be involved, please do consider carefully whether you can give your time and energy to this important campaign.’

Roger Hallam is the notorious co-founder of Extinction Rebellion.

‘Just Stop Oil is going to need lots of money,’ the website continues. ‘They are asking people to donate as much as they can.’

This is a religion and like all religions, it uses emotional manipulation as a means to convince people to hand over their money to the collective. Considering Just Stop Oil encourages people to commit crimes in the name of ‘activism’ – whether that be gluing their hands to artwork, holding up traffic, or interfering with the lives or ordinary people – one wonders why they are allowed to keep that money if it is in whole or part benefiting from criminal activity.

While many thousands of ordinary people are probably being fleeced of their cash based on some wishy-washy promise to ‘save the planet’, there are plenty of elite donors and philanthropists with green-shaped share portfolios that prop up these disruptive campaigns and ensure that the topic of ‘climate’ continues to rise to the top of the public conversation.

Those who stand to benefit from the sale of renewables technology, businessmen whose financial interests lay in the increased prices of minerals used in their production, CEOs who sell otherwise useless climate-stalking ideas (such as carbon credits and footprints), and banking interests who would love nothing more than to create a system of social punishment to ‘save the planet’ (and quietly control the behaviour of their customers) – are all lining the pockets of these rag-tag climate groups.

It’s time we look past the abuse of our children (who are told they will die if they don’t throw soup over a Van Gogh), and drag out the conspirators behind the curtain – the rich end of town that is using child soldiers to manipulate Western Civilisation onto a self-destructive path that uses our collective empathy against us.

While the kids think they are saving the planet, the businesses that fund them are tearing the planet apart. Renewables technology is driving the largest mining boom in human history while simultaneously robbing civilisation of reliable, affordable energy. The poorer we get, the more powerful and rich these CEOs become.

They are not saving the planet, they are buying it, one soup-splashed oil painting at a time.

Let’s pretend that we agree to the demands of Just Stop Oil. Most of these kids are vegans who like to eat a lot of food grown in different parts of the world. What do they imagine their avocados are going to look like after six months on a sailing ship? They aren’t ready for an oil-free world and I wager their masters have no intention of creating one.

https://spectator.com.au/2022/10/climate-criminals/ ?

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

Western leaders must share the blame for the energy crisis

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war and the sanctions it triggered, energy prices have skyrocketed. Liz Truss has warned that soaring energy bills are a ‘price worth paying’ in order to stand up against Vladimir Putin. President Joe Biden has called this year’s rocketing bills ‘Putin’s price hike.’ Margrethe Vestager, vice president of the European Commission, has encouraged Europeans to take short, cold showers to conserve energy. ‘When you turn off the water, say ‘Take that, Putin!’’ she urged.

But are the high prices really Putin’s fault? He didn’t sanction himself, after all. It’s the West that chose to cut itself off from the Russian fossil fuels upon which it had come to rely. Moreover, the sanctions haven’t been an unqualified success — Russia’s corporate profits leapt 25 per cent between the imposition of the sanctions and the end of August.

So what are the origins of the current energy crisis? When did it really begin?

Let’s play a game. Guess which year these headlines are from: ‘Curtailed ammonia production in Antwerp and Ludwigshafen.’ ‘High natural gas prices lead to a shutdown of British fertiliser plants.’ ‘Diesel Shortage Amid Soaring Prices: Truck Stops Resort To Rationing.’ If you guessed 2022, you’d be wrong. Those are all from September 2021.

The truth is that the energy crisis began to take effect late last year. A combination of post-Covid demand rebound, a wind drought in Europe and depleted fossil fuel storage on the continent all collided to put serious pressure on the world’s industrial systems. Add the longstanding over investment in unreliable renewables, nuclear plant closures across the world in the wake of the Fukushima disaster and a global drop of more than 50 per cent in oil and gas investment — from $700 billion (£635 billion) to $300 billion (£270 billion) — between 2014 and last year, and you have everything you need to kick off a global energy crunch. Russian tank treads running from the Donbas to Kyiv just made it all worse.

When politicians point the finger at Putin, they’re deflecting from their own failures. It’s hard to blame them, especially if they’re European. Aluminium smelters in the EU have had to shutter operations, as have fertiliser plants, glass factories and various other manufacturers. Germany, the continent’s largest economy, is about to lose much of its manufacturing base to high energy prices. Industry and union leaders have been sounding the alarm for months, warning that Germany’s manufacturing sector could collapse without sufficient energy. And it’s not even clear Germany’s better-than-expected storage numbers are enough to get them through the winter without any flows from Russia.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the number of people behind on their utility bills mushroomed from three million to nearly 11 million between March and August. Eleven per cent of the British population — nearly six million people — are already forgoing food to pay their energy bills. Would you want to be on the hook for any of this? It’s way easier to blame the evil Russian guy.

Don’t be fooled into thinking America is immune from the crisis. Sure, the US has incredible domestic resources, but the country is also moving in the European direction. Over the last few years, America has shut down nuclear plants before their time, including Palisades in Michigan and Indian Point in New York. The fossil-fuel industry isn’t interested in risking capital on expansion when the Democrats continue to sabre-rattle about destroying it. Not since Truman has a president leased so few federal lands to the oil and gas sector. To make matters worse, most of the new capacity being added to the grid is intermittent and unreliable wind and solar.

The result of all this? America’s energy and electricity sectors look anaemic, fragile and expensive. Over the summer, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association reported that about 20 million households in the United States — one out of six homes — are behind on their utility bills. Some parts of the country have seen electricity prices increase by 233 per cent since last year.

The North American Electricity Reliability Corporation has warned that a huge swath of the country is becoming increasingly vulnerable to blackouts. In August, a heatwave pushed the Texas grid to new demand limits for a week straight. The next month, the California grid operator had to beg consumers to consume less juice to avoid rolling blackouts. And don’t forget New England. Despite its proximity to the Marcellus Shale Formation in the mid-Atlantic states, the region lacks the pipeline infrastructure to import natural gas from it. The Jones Act, which bars foreign-owned vessels from delivering goods between US ports, has also hamstrung the region. New England’s liquefied natural gas, or LNG, import terminals cannot receive from the Gulf of Mexico’s LNG export terminals because while the United States produces the most LNG in the world, it does not make LNG tankers. So New Englanders will have to compete with Europe and Asia for pricey LNG to light and heat their homes this winter. That’ll be painful: natural gas is 53 per cent of the New England grid’s resource mix.

But America doesn’t have to follow in Europe’s footsteps. Rather than doubling down on the ‘energy transition,’ America should desensitise itself to the sobering truths of external events and commit to energy realism. After all, energy is indispensable to maintaining the economy. So, what would a more realistic energy policy look like?

First, we need more hydrocarbons. Fossil fuels are the master resource, like it or not. Everything that could possibly move us away from fossil fuels in the long run will need cheap fossil fuels for their construction in the near and medium term: from nuclear power plants to battery storage. We need to cut the red tape on permitting to fast-track more pipeline construction. We should also eliminate all carbon taxes, which increase our energy costs. And we must lease more federal land to the fossil-fuel industry. Eliminating the Renewable Fuel Standard, which has turned into an expensive financial boondoggle the burden of which companies pass onto consumers, wouldn’t hurt either.

Second, we need to liberate the atom. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has adopted safety standards so extreme that no design offered since its inception in the mid-Seventies has ever been completed. Its chosen radiation safety standard — ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ — relies on an incoherent measurement of radiation dosage and creates too much opportunity for regulatory activism. And the NRC’s approval process takes too long. The agency needs to be reworked so that its standards are fewer and clearer and its approval processes faster and cheaper.

Third, we need to harden our grid. Wind and solar, when built in large amounts, have a free ride on the reliable power plants that can be called on at will to ensure the grid keeps running. They also tend to stop producing power when they’re needed most. According to the Energy Information Administration, when California was on the brink of blackouts, solar and wind production plummeted. Natural gas stepped in to save the day, making up more than 50 per cent of the resource mix after sundown. The fastest way to curb their growth and spare the grid more entropy would be to eliminate all production tax credits for wind and solar in perpetuity. That removes the incentive for overbuilding and spares electricity markets the subsidised negative prices that push reliable power plants off the grid.

Of course, embarking on this plan will mean taking on the environmental establishment, which views anything outside of renewable energy as an existential threat to mankind. But the choice should be obvious: one road leads toward liberty and abundance, another leads toward tyranny and austerity. We can live in a country where bureaucrats decide when we get to run our washers and dryers to spare our poorly managed infrastructure, or one where we can enjoy the freedom to pursue our own interests. We’re years down the road of the former, and the Inflation Reduction Act won’t help: it makes us even more dependent on unreliable electricity from wind and solar, increases taxes on oil and gas, gives the EPA nearly limitless power to curb fossil-fuel use and utterly fails to decriminalise nuclear. But it’s not too late to correct course.

During the energy crises of the 1970s, Amory Lovins, godfather of the renewable energy ideology, also invoked a choice between two energy paths: the ‘hard’ path of large power plants or the ‘soft’ one of wind, solar and biomass. He premised his vision on a misreading of Robert Frost’s poem, ‘The Road Not Taken.’

In the poem, the paths present no real difference. Only in hindsight, as a post-hoc rationalisation, does the illusion of choice appear. The speaker of the poem flatters himself by pretending he ‘took the one less traveled by.’ Lovins was a bad reader and a poor thinker — he also consulted on Germany’s Energiewende, its ‘turnaround’ to renewable low-carbon energy production. European leaders, and later American ones — not Putin — have chosen the soft path and volunteered for disaster. And that has made all the difference.

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

Banks Try Quiet Quitting on Net Zero

For some bankers, net-zero is like a new year’s resolution—a pledge one makes and often breaks before a year has passed.

Several of the largest banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley, headed into the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) as members of the world’s biggest zero-carbon finance club. Their membership in the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), a group of roughly 500 financial sector entities, publicly committed their banks to reach net-zero carbon emissions by midcentury.

By September they were among a faction ready to quit, according to sources familiar with the matter. JPMorgan, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley declined to comment.

A year on from COP26, some big banks seem worried they jumped on the bandwagon too soon, especially as oil and gas companies have experienced a market resurgence. What makes the prospect of net-zero—or at least the vow to come up with near-term benchmarks toward that goal—such an anxiety-provoking proposition?

The revived fortunes of fossil fuels, especially coal, may explain some of the weakened resolve for decarbonization. Global bank lending to fossil fuel companies is up 15%, to over $300 billion, in the first nine months of this year, from the same period in 2021, according to data ­compiled by Bloomberg.

This is Wall Street just doing its job: making money. Banks earned more than $1 billion in revenue from fossil lending during the first three quarters, in line with 2021. Why quit business with a booming sector over a distant climate goal?

Harald Walkate, the former head of environmental, social, and governance investing at Natixis Investment Managers and now a sustainable finance consultant, says some banks may feel their hands are tied as their fiduciary duty requires them to maximize financial value for clients.

“While from an ethical or ideological perspective many people might not like the idea of investing in fossil fuels, it’s certainly not illegal,” he says. “And it may in fact be very good business for some time to come.”

GFANZ members voluntarily pledged to completely negate greenhouse gas emissions from their balance sheets by 2050. Some banks may have felt peer pressure to join GFANZ last year, perhaps swayed by its co-chair, former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney. But no one forced them into it. (GFANZ is co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg, the founder of Bloomberg Green parent Bloomberg LP.)

Banks may not have originally understood the full litigation risks tied to signing net-zero commitments. DLA Piper is among the law firms saying any company making a net-zero claim without scientific underpinnings may be viewed as having misled consumers.

On this issue, banks were irked when a United Nations-backed group known as Race to Zero earlier this year proposed binding restrictions on fossil-fuel finance as a necessary condition for net-zero claims to be credible. GFANZ’s ­affiliation with Race to Zero started before COP26 as a way to boost its credibility, but this relationship now “looks like it will soon snap,” says Ben Caldecott, director of the Oxford Sustainable Finance Group.

In a statement sent to Bloomberg News in early October, GFANZ said each of its sub-alliances are “subject only to their own governance structures,” essentially giving GFANZ members freedom to ignore Race to Zero’s proposals. GFANZ also said the group has “received no indication from any of our members that they intend to leave.”

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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

Sunday, October 16, 2022



Army’s Misplaced Priorities: Recruitment Shortfall More Problematic Than Climate Change

The word “incongruous” immediately came to mind last week when two news headlines appeared at about the same time concerning the U.S. Army.

The Army Times last week reported that at the end of fiscal year 2022 (on Sept. 30), the Army came up 20,000 soldiers short of its authorized end strength.

The Army was authorized to have a strength of 485,000 active-duty soldiers in 2022, but because of severe recruiting challenges, instead ended the year at 465,600. This is a bona fide crisis because a shortfall like this has never been seen in the modern Army, and if it continues, it will result in a greatly diminished force.

Similar challenges are being seen in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.

The second news headline, appearing that same day, trumpeted the news of the Army releasing its new implementation plan for its climate strategy. Declaring climate change an “immediate and serious threat to U.S. national security,” the 50-page plan detailed all the methods the Army will use to fight climate change, including the application of hundreds of millions of dollars to build microgrids, greenhouse gas-free power plants, and fielding a 100% zero-emission nontactical vehicle fleet by 2027.

Reinforcing the message, Army leaders simultaneously appeared at a think tank event to herald the wisdom of the climate plan.

The same week that the Army fails to achieve its recruiting goal—a direct measure of its health—it released a major news announcement trumpeting the release of its climate change remediation plan. The climate plan, clearly the result of months of arduous work, represents an incredible amount of organizational effort.

That’s effort that to an outside observer seemingly should have been first applied to its current recruiting crisis, as opposed to the direction to establish climate-related training programs, mandates to use only sustainable building materials, and experiments to make tactical vehicles (howitzers and armored personnel carriers) all electric.

Perhaps we should take comfort in the knowledge that while the Army plummets in size and capacity, what is left will at least be producing less carbon dioxide.

Granted, the individuals who produce “climate change implementation plans” are not the same ones who would develop strategies and plans to turn around dwindling recruiting numbers. But planners are planners, and the skills they use to write a climate change plan could reasonably be applied to the recruiting crisis.

It’s about priorities. It’s also about optics. A popular saying nowadays is “read the room.” That doesn’t seem to be happening.

At the time when the Army most needs the support of the nation to persuade young people to join its ranks, it is busy releasing climate strategies. What message does that send?

While the Army didn’t have any choice whether to produce a climate plan (it was required by President Joe Biden’s executive order), the contents of the plan are the Army’s, and some reflect a prioritization of climate ideology over warfighting skills.

The Army’s plan, among other things, contains the requirement to modify unit designs to account for soldiers and civilians that hold “approved climate credentials.”

There is direction to incorporate climate change into “strategic and operational-level wargame and exercise designs.” And the most damning of all is a requirement to “ … produce a digital handbook of potential unit-level collective training modifications that would reduce direct Army [greenhouse gas] emissions.”

Reading between the lines, the Army is considering modifying its unit training programs to reduce greenhouse gases.

A changing climate has always been a challenge the military has had to confront in planning and carrying out its mission. But a consistent failure by the Army to meet its recruiting targets carries dire national security consequences—not sometime in the distant future, but today.

Building a strong national defense is a deadly serious endeavor, one that demands a narrow focus on a few key priorities. That appeared to be missing last week.

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

UK Climate Minister Pulls Out of Event with Climate Science Deniers

The truth can sometimes be deeply unfashionable

The UK’s new climate minister has pulled out of an event hosting two of the world’s most prominent climate science deniers, DeSmog can reveal.

Graham Stuart MP was listed as a keynote speaker on Tuesday at the four-day Global Investment in Sustainable Development conference in London, hosted by the CC Forum, a company which touts itself as the “green Davos”.

His speech would have been followed by a debate about global warming featuring Lord Christopher Monckton, who has a history of promoting climate science denial, and Marc Morano, a prominent U.S. climate science denial activist.

However, when contacted by DeSmog, the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said Stuart would no longer be attending the event, and that he was not told who else would be on the bill when he agreed to speak.

The reason for his cancelling was not immediately clear. While BEIS referred to other speakers, conference organisers said Stuart’s team had cited “unforeseen urgent government business” for his decision to withdraw. Stuart did not respond when contacted for comment.

Prime Minister Liz Truss is facing criticism over her support for new fossil fuel projects, including fracking, and plans to block solar farms and scrap environmental protections.

Stuart defended the government’s support for almost 100 new licences for oil and gas drilling this week, telling a panel of MPs that domestic production is “good for the environment” because it creates fewer emissions than importing oil and gas.

“This government, which still holds the COP Presidency, continues to share the stage with individuals and organisations that are undermining national and global attempts to tackle the climate crisis, despite UK citizens being shown to be committed to more urgent action”, Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer told DeSmog.

“We’ve had the Business Secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg opening up the North Sea to further exploration by fossil fuel corporations and now the Minister supposedly appointed to counter Rees-Mogg’s climate scepticism speaking at a conference that is welcoming climate sceptics.

“We need a government that understands the actions needed to reach net zero.”

The minister’s speech at the CC Forum event was to be followed by a “VIP Networking Lunch”, and then a debate titled “Is Global Warming the World’s Most Pressing Problem?”, according to the online programme.

The debate will feature Marc Morano, an American activist who Greenpeace once dubbed a “central cell of the climate denial machine”, and Lord Christopher Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, who in 2010 led Tea Party crowds in the U.S. in a call and response chant of “Global warming is?”, with the crowd shouting “Bullshit!”.

Morano runs the climate science denial website Climate Depot and the think tank CFACT, which has received funding from Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

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

Cutting back the development of oil and resources in the name of addressing climate change concerns is getting energy backward, according to J.P. Morgan bank CEO Jamie Dimon

“Well, I think we’re getting energy completely wrong, which is, you know, ever since the war started, we’ve known that Europe is going to have a problem and that it was pretty predictable that Putin was going to cut off some gas and certain oil, and oil prices go up,” he said in an interview released Tuesday.

“And by the way, for the climate folks here, it’s made the climate worse, because people had this bad assumption that high oil prices and gas prices reduce consumption, reduce CO2. No. Poor nations, India, China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, are turning back on coal plants, as are rich nations called Germany, Netherlands, France,” he said.

“We have it completely backwards,” he continued.

“In my view, America should have been pumping more oil and gas, and it should have been supported. You know, we’re trying to have our cake and eat it too.”

During the interview with CNBC, he said, “America needs to play a real leadership role. America is the swing producer, not Saudi Arabia. We should have gotten that right starting in March.”

“It’s almost too late to get it right because obviously, this is a longer-term investment,” he said.

Dimon said short-term shortages linked to the war in Ukraine can be overcome.

“But we have a longer-term problem now, which is the world is not producing enough oil and gas to reduce coal, make the transition [to green energy], create security for people,” he said.

“I would put it in the critical category. This should be treated almost as a matter of war at this point, nothing short of that.”

Dimon spoke of the volatile times in which the world tries to function. “Don’t be surprised. Like, I was not surprised at Nord Stream One being blown up,” he said, suggesting tankers could be blown up if they are “in the wrong place.”

During the interview, Dimon touched on the Russian invasion of Ukraine and said, “It’s Pearl Harbor, it’s Czechoslovakia, and it’s really an attack on the Western world.”

“It’s a chance for the Western work to get its act together,” he said. “You know, the autocratic world thinks that the Western world is a little lazy and incompetent — and there’s a little bit of truth to that. This is the chance to get our act together and to solidify the Western, free, democratic, capitalist, free people, free movements, freedom of speech, free religion for the next century,” he added.

“Because if we don’t get this one right, that kind of chaos you can see around the world for the next 50 years.”

Last month, Dimon told a congressional panel the bank will not embrace a ban on investing in oil and gas development, according to Forbes. “Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America,” he said.

“We are not getting this right,” Dimon continued. “The world needs effectively 100 million barrels of oil and gas every day, and we need it for 10 years. To do that, we need proper investing in the oil and gas complex.

“Investing in the oil and gas complex is good for reducing CO2, because as we have all seen, because of the high price of oil and gas, particularly for the rest of the world, you’ve seen everyone going back to coal. Not just poor nations like India, Indonesia and Vietnam, but wealthy nations like Germany, France and the Netherlands,” he said.

In August, Dimon tried to state his case that addressing climate concerns and developing oil and gas projects are not mutually exclusive, according to Yahoo.

“We should focus on climate. The problem with that is because of high oil and gas prices, the world is turning back on their coal plants. It is dirtier,” Dimon said.

“Why can’t we get it through our thick skulls, that if you want to solve climate [change], it is not against climate [change] for America to boost more oil and gas?” he said.

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

The green investments that threaten Australia's future with their failures

Investments with essentially no return. A system of windmills and solar panels has added nothing to the good electricity availablity that we already had: A vast investment that has done nothing to improve our lives

Productivity growth is the key to income growth – we can’t have the latter without the former. A matter that has troubled many economists in the Western world during recent decades is a slowdown in productivity growth.

Australia is typical. Multi-factor productivity – the overall return on labour and capital inputs combined – has been growing at only 0.3 per cent per year in recent years, while the more commonly understood, labour productivity, has also seen growth at only 0.9 per cent a year. These are half the levels seen in the 1990s.

That slowdown is less evident in many countries that are nowadays referred to as ‘developing’. Some such countries that had been lagging behind Western world living standards for centuries started to catch up once their governments stood back from directly controlling their economies and created the conditions for individuals to accumulate savings and to invest these with much reduced fears of expropriation.

First, beginning in the 1960s, we saw the so-called Asian Tigers – Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Korea – start to emerge as industrial powerhouses; these countries now have income levels that surpass those of most developed western economies. This was followed by phenomenal growth rates achieved by China; in more recent years we’ve seen India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and even some African countries starting to show high levels of economic growth.

In contrast to the liberalisation and lessening of investment constraints and regulations that powered those nations’ growths, most western economies have imposed increasing layers of regulation on investment opportunities. These measures have forced down investment returns through requiring additional spending on environmental, heritage, and social matters – including the preparation of lengthy reports – and lengthening the approval time required to operationalise an initial idea.

For Australia, the slowdown in per capita growth has taken place notwithstanding increases in investment. Per capita annual real capital expenditure is currently 50 per cent higher than in the late 1980s.

But much of the investment in recent years is simply in dead-weight assets like the many idle desalinisation plants that have been constructed around Australia, plants that owe nothing to commercial decisions.

For the rest, increasing red tape reduces the efficiency – the payoff – of nearly all investment. And using subsidies to force funds into particular venues can lead the investment to have a negative effect by destroying the productive capabilities of other investment. This can be seen with new investment in electricity, which dominate the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)category: ‘electricity gas, water, and waste services’. The category comprises about six per cent of Australia’s total new investment the bulk of which is for weather-dependent wind and solar and for the increased transmission, batteries, and pumped hydro necessary to support these generation sources.

This expenditure would not take place without subsidies either from government directly, or from regulatory measures that pass the costs of transmission and wind/solar onto consumers. In favouring these intrinsically high-cost forms of electricity, the subsidies force out of the market lower cost and more reliable forms, especially coal generators that comprise 60-70 per cent of supply. This has resulted in overall generation costs trebling and in measures to facilitate wind/solar that include replacing the present transmission system, valued at some $21 billion, with one at a cost that the government says will be $80 billion.

Regulations and direct subsidies to wind/solar have already forced the closure of coal generation capacity and the number of coal generating units in Australia is expected to be half their level of 10 years ago by 2025. On top of this is the Queensland Government’s radical plan to replace all its coal stations by wind/solar and two mythical pumped hydro schemes.

In measuring new capacity from investments, the ABS assumes its returns are constant and invariant to time, and ‘a change in the quantity of capital services delivered from any given capital asset is tantamount to a change in its productive capital stock’.

The sad fact is that certain investments, especially those taken for political purposes, yield no return at all and others are akin to investing in computer viruses that actually destroy value and cause considerable extra expenditures in attempts to offset the detrimental effects of the malware.

Subsidised expenditures in weather-dependent renewable facilities, rather than constituting investments, are parasitic outlays that destroy genuine income-producing assets.

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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