China disappoints on global warming

Earlier, I spent some minutes looking up my colleagues’ past musings on China’s annual session of the National People’s Congress, in search of inspiration for how to describe it. I found “rubber-stamp parliament”, “this insubstantial pageant” and (my personal favourite): “China’s well-fed eunuch of a parliament”. This year’s event got under way on Friday. It is marked by the approval of the 14th five-year plan, which runs from now until 2025 and is being closely watched by climate analysts for hints of how the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases will transform itself from coal-guzzler to “ecological civilisation”, an expression President Xi Jinping is fond of.

The plan published on Friday left much to be desired. Analysts were looking for an indication that the country’s emissions would peak sometime around 2025 (Mr Xi has previously spoken of doing so “before 2030”) in order to start what will have to be a dizzying decarbonisation as soon as possible, and ultimately meet the national goal of becoming carbon-neutral by 2060. (Analysts at the International Energy Agency described this as “potentially...the biggest climate undertaking ever made by any country”.)

Lauri Myllyvirta, an analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, wrote to me that he “was expecting at least a total energy consumption target” which has featured in previous five-year plans but is absent from the 14th edition. “Now there’s even less by way of targets that constrain carbon dioxide emissions growth than in the previous five-year plans,” he added.

What the published draft did include were targets to decrease the amount of energy that is used, and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, for each unit of GDP. These two numbers are set to fall by 13.5% and 18% respectively between 2021 and 2025, which is approaching what Chinese policy analysts have said is needed for the country to meet its long-term climate goals, assuming the economy grows by 5.3% per year. The catch is that, unusually, this five-year plan does not include a GDP target for the whole period. It says only that it will grow by 6% in 2021.

China has a habit of setting its climate targets low and over-achieving them. Indeed, carbon-dioxide intensity (how much is emitted per unit of GDP) fell by 18.8% between 2015 and 2020, so the new formal target is unambitious. And there are hints to be gleaned elsewhere about the future of Chinese coal.

As we wrote in December, China turning its back on coal sooner rather than later is essential for meeting the global Paris climate goals, not just its own national carbon-neutrality target. Friday’s document mentions “promoting the clean use of coal”. Yet on March 4th, the China National Coal Association said that coal consumption in 2025 would be capped at 4.2bn tonnes, a small increase from 2020. Further detail may come in regional and sectoral plans, including one on energy, that will be published in the coming months.

One surprise announcement in Friday’s draft was a target to increase nuclear electricity-generating capacity from 52 gigawatts today to 70 gigawatts by 2025.

Email from https://www.economist.com/

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

Climate Lockdowns?

Ecofascists point to the emissions reductions during COVID shutdowns as a model for climate.

False climate predictions are, unfortunately, nothing new. “The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” declared climate expert Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 while pushing the Green New Deal. Former Vice President Al Gore’s 2006 “An Inconvenient Truth” told the public there was about a decade of life remaining unless significant climate change measures were implemented. In 1989, Noel Brown, then director of one of the offices of the UN Environment division, espoused the warning that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Contrast these statements to the 1975 siren by Kenneth Watt, the UC Berkeley professor who predicted the world was going to be “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Now the public is being told that lockdowns may be necessary to save the world from climate change. This is, they say, an existential problem.

Late last summer and early fall, the whispers of “climate lockdowns” first appeared. In an opinion article for MarketWatch, Mariana Mazzucato, an author and a professor in innovative economics at the University of London, opined that a climate lockdown would employ measures such as limiting private-vehicle use, banning consumption of red meat, and imposing rationing to force fossil fuel companies out of business. Mazzucato concluded, “To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.”

Now, the UK Guardian trumpets, “The annual rate of emissions cuts must increase roughly tenfold from that recorded in high-income countries before the pandemic.” Furthermore, “Lockdowns around the world led to an unprecedented fall in emissions,” but similar reductions “are needed every year of the next decade to have a good chance of holding temperature rises to within 1.5C or 2C of pre-industrial levels, as required by the Paris agreement.”

Ironically, just last month, Science Daily published data by the National Center for Atmospheric Research that wrecked the premise of these lockdowns. As published, “The counterintuitive finding highlights the influence of airborne particles, or aerosols, that block incoming sunlight. When emissions of aerosols dropped last spring, more of the Sun’s warmth reached the planet, especially in heavily industrialized nations, such as the United States and Russia, that normally pump high amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere.”

But don’t get distracted by the inconvenient truths of selective science. Control of money, power, and policy is at the root of this entire cult of thinking aimed at “high-income countries.” It seems that a vow of poverty and Third World status is required.

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 2015 Paris Climate Accord goals are to limit the increase of the global average temperature to 1850 levels, when the U.S. population was around 23 million, Millard Fillmore was president, and there were no cars or personal vehicles outside of a good ole horse and wagon. True to his ideology, the newly appointed United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry is even claiming the Paris Agreement’s goals are inadequate in reducing carbon emissions and that a climate tax, as supported by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, is one of the most significant things that can be done to yield the greatest impact.

The late Dr. Walter Williams, renowned economist, author, and conservative, nailed it: “Communism and socialism have lost respectability, so it’s been repackaged as environmentalism.” The Center-Right needs to stop bickering internally and make a stand, or we’re headed back to before there was a Grand Old Party.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78226-climate-lockdowns-2021-03-08

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

The earth is greening

Aren’t we supposed to be thinking about “climate lockdowns” to reduce emissions and combat global warming climate change? Maybe the folks pushing that idea missed the recent updated memo from NASA — the earth is still getting greener.

At the turn of the century, NASA explained its measurement technique: “By carefully measuring the wavelengths and intensity of visible and near-infrared light reflected by the land surface back up into space, scientists use an algorithm called a ‘Vegetation Index’ to quantify the concentrations of green leaf vegetation around the globe.”

We’re old enough to remember when the environmental problems threatening our existence were deforestation and holes in the ozone layer. As it turns out, there is 10% more vegetation now than there was in 2000, and the trend began at least 10 years before that. To add insult to injury for the ecofascists, the greening is because of human activity, and it offsets emissions and ozone holes far more effectively than mandates or carbon taxes. Another benefit is more food for an increasing world population.

This isn’t new information, of course, as our Jordan Candler wrote two years ago. But it’s worth highlighting once again amidst the renewed panic as the Biden administration rejoins the Paris Agreement.

The entire environmental movement could stand to be actually more green and a whole lot less red.

https://patriotpost.us/articles/78246-gods-green-earth-2021-03-08

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

Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched

It has been ten years since a tsunami laid waste the Pacific coast of northern Honshu, Japan’s most populous island. The tsunami and the undersea earthquake which triggered it, the largest ever recorded in the region, killed nearly 20,000 people, destroyed over 100,000 homes and threw the lives of tens of millions into turmoil. The direct economic cost, estimated at over $200bn, was larger than that of any other natural disaster the world has seen. And yet for many around the world the event is remembered for just one thing: the ensuing crisis at the Fuku-shima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant

The earthquake cut the plant off from outside sources of electricity. The tsunami easily topped the plant’s sea walls, flooding the underground bunkers containing its emergency generators—a foreseeable risk Japan’s neutered regulators had failed to foresee. Because there was no way to cool the reactor cores, the nuclear fuel within them began to melt; amid fire, explosion and alarming amounts of radiation, a puddle from hell began eating into the plant’s concrete foundations.

The world looked on aghast. In Shanghai and San Francisco iodine tablets and iodised salt jumped off the shelves as people looked for prophylaxis of which they had no need. In Germany the chancellor, Angela Merkel, who had long stood with business leaders against the country’s powerful anti-nuclear movement, ordered its reactors phased out. In China the world’s largest new nuclear-plant programme was put on hold. Talk of a “nuclear renaissance” to fight climate change fell silent.

The reaction, though understandable, was wrong. Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks. Its large, slowly built plants are expensive both in absolute terms and in terms of the electricity they produce. Its very small but real risk of catastrophic failure requires a high level of regulation, and it has a disturbing history of regulatory capture, amply demonstrated in Japan. It produces extremely long-lived and toxic waste. And it is associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most of the countries outside Europe that use nuclear power have some history of attempting to develop a bomb. All these factors contribute to an unease with the technology felt, to greater or lesser extent, by people all around the world.

Against all that, though, two things must be remembered. One is that well-regulated nuclear power is safe. With the terrible Soviet-era exception of Chernobyl, nuclear disasters come without large death tolls. It was the tsunami, not radiation, that claimed nearly all those lives in Fukushima. The other is that the climate is in crisis, and nuclear plants can supply some of the vast amounts of emissions-free electricity the world needs if it is to cope. Solar and wind power are now much cheaper, but they are intermittent. Providing a reliable grid is a lot easier if some of its generating capacity can be assumed to be available all the time. Nuclear provides such capacity with no ongoing emissions, and it is doing so safely and at scale around the world.

Despite this, safe and productive nuclear plants are being closed across the rich world. Those closures and the retirement of older sites mean that advanced economies could lose two-thirds of their nuclear capacity by 2040, according to the International Energy Agency. If new fossil-fuel infrastructure fills the gap, it will last for decades. If renewables do so, the opportunity cost will be measured in gigatonnes of carbon. Renewables replacing nuclear capacity would almost always be better deployed to replace fossil-fuel capacity.

Sometimes the closure of nuclear plants is largely a matter of economics. In places where emitting carbon dioxide comes with no price, such as America, the benefits of being emissions-free are hidden from the market. That hurts nuclear, and it should be rectified. When closure is political, the onus is on Green politicians, in particular, to change their tune. To hasten the decline of nuclear power is wilfully to hobble the world in the greatest environmental struggle of all.

The argument for keeping existing nuclear plants open has been strengthened, in some places, by one of the responses to Fukushima: greater independence for nuclear regulators. Britain granted new freedom to its regulator after 2011. So did Japan. Though grander hopes for reform after the tsunami bore little fruit, Japan did largely take the regulators’ hand from the power companies’ glove. Its new supervisor has made reopening mothballed nuclear power plants harder than the government would like, but that is as it should be. In Japan more than anywhere, nuclear needs to earn back trust to be useful.

This points to nuclear’s greatest weakness. In democracies it is expensive, owing to regulation and public antipathy, which makes new nuclear power a hard sell. The technology is thus increasingly the preserve of autocracies—precisely the systems where good regulation is least likely. Having paused after Fukushima, China’s nuclear plans accelerated as part of an effort to reduce reliance on coal. China produced four times as much nuclear energy in 2019 as it did in 2011; it has 16 reactors under construction and another 39 planned. Countries wanting new nuclear plants now look to China and Russia as suppliers.

There is a strong case for democracies seeking to replace ageing nuclear plants with non-intermittent equivalents to join the importers. If Chinese reactors are designed in the knowledge that they will have to meet with the approval of independent regulators the world will be a safer place. At the same time, in boosting energy r&d to tackle the climate crisis, Western governments should be sure to give nuclear its fair share. There are real attractions to some new approaches, notably smaller reactors with lower unit costs: in platoons they can replace old plants; singly they can add incremental capacity where needed. They might perhaps be used to retrofit old fossil-fuel plants.

Nuclear power has drawbacks the size of a tsunami. But with Chinese plants being built today that will not be decommissioned until the 22nd century, it cannot simply be wished away. What is more, it has a vital role to play in the fight for a stable climate. The lesson of Fukushima is not to eschew nuclear power, it is to use it wisely.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/03/06/nuclear-power-must-be-well-regulated-not-ditched

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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

The climate science is clear, extreme cold events are becoming less common

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other climate alarmists are attempting to take advantage of last week’s tragic extreme cold event in Texas last to spread the myth that climate change caused the cold outbreak or makes such extreme cold outbreaks more likely to occur. In reality, the scientific data are clear – extreme cold events are becoming less frequent rather than more frequent in recent decades. If climate change is having an impact on extreme cold events, it is clearly to lessen the chances of last week’s extreme cold tragedy.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes climate summaries for each state. For each state, NOAA documents either the frequency of very cold days, in which temperatures do not rise above freezing, or the frequency of very cold nights, in which temperatures drop below zero degrees. For Texas, the NOAA data show the number of days each year with high temperatures failing to make it above freezing has been declining during the past 25 years. Very cold days were most frequent between 1960 and 1990. By contrast, two of the past three five-year periods brought Texas fewer very cold days than normal, and three of the past five five-year periods brought fewer very cold days than normal.

The states neighboring Texas show an even greater reduction in extreme cold events.

In Oklahoma, all five of the past five-year periods brought a below-average number of very cold nights with temperatures dropping below zero. Oklahoma has not experienced an above-average frequency of very cold nights since the 1980s.

In Louisiana, every five-year period in the current century has brought an average or below-average number of very cold days where temperatures do not climb above freezing. The last time Louisiana experienced more-frequent-than-average outbreaks of very cold temperatures was during the 1990s.

In New Mexico, five of the past six five-year periods have brought a below-average number of very cold nights with temperatures dropping below zero degrees.

In Arkansas, the last time there was an above-average frequency of very cold nights with temperatures dropping below zero degrees was in the 1980s.

In summary, for Texas and every state that borders Texas, extreme cold events are becoming a rarer event.

The fact that global warming – or “climate change” – is reducing the frequency of extreme cold events does not mean that extreme cold events no longer occur. They still do occur, but occur less frequently. That being the case, it defies science and common sense to claim that climate change caused last week’s cold outbreak in Texas or made the cold outbreak more likely to occur.

For additional confirmation, we need merely listen to what climate activists themselves have been saying for years. Just last month, the climate activist website Climate Central published an article titled “2021 Fewer Cold Nights & Groundhog Day.” The article warned, “89% (217) of 245 cities have fewer cold nights since 1970. … The decline in colder days and nights has consequences, including economic disruptions in winter recreation and the extension of disease-carrying tick and mosquito seasons.”

Back in 2014, Texas climate activist Katharine Hayhoe warned about the Austin, Texas, climate, “Nighttime temperatures that drop below freezing are projected to become increasingly more rare.”

Also, climate activists frequently claim that increasingly rare extreme cold events are allowing more bark beetles to survive winter and damage forests throughout the United States. For example, the New York Times claimed in a 2017 article, “the year’s coldest nights — which determine whether they survive the winter — have warmed by as much as 7 degrees Fahrenheit.”

Imagine how much worse the Texas tragedy would have been if temperatures were another 7 degrees colder.

Even the aforementioned Climate Central claimed in a 2013 article, “Meanwhile the beetles, whose numbers would normally be held in check by cold winters that kill their larvae, are surviving in greater numbers from one year to the next as winters in the U.S. continue to get warmer.”

That is at odds with what climate alarmists are saying this past week after the Texas cold outbreak.

Climate activists cannot have it both ways. Global warming cannot be causing severe cold outbreaks at the same time it is causing – by climate activists’ own admission – a reduction in the frequency of severe cold outbreaks.

Fortunately for the rest of us, we can examine the NOAA data and see for ourselves that extreme cold events are becoming less frequent, not more frequent, in recent years and decades under “climate change.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/1/climate-science-clear-extreme-cold-events-are-beco

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

Electric vehicles are trendy but not very Earth-friendly, affordable or emission-free

Paul Driessen

Tesla may be synonymous with electric vehicles right now. But within a few years, GM, Volvo and many other manufacturers will be making mostly or only EVs, because they’re emission-free, climate-friendly, socially and ecologically responsible, and more affordable every year. Which explains why we need subsidies to persuade people to buy them, and mandates to force people to buy them.

President Biden wants all new light/medium-duty vehicles sold by 2035 to be EVs. Vice President Harris wants only ZEVs (zero emission vehicles) on America’s roads by 2045. Various states are considering or have already passed similar laws; some would even ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2030. Climate Czar John Kerry will likely be happy to buy EVs to expand his fleet of twelve cars, two yachts, six houses, and the private jet he flies in to accept climate crusader awards.

AOC would use her Green New Deal to “massively” expand electric vehicle manufacturing and use. She herself now drives an EV, most likely a $48,000 Tesla Model 3 Long Range (350 miles per charge).

Mini AOC also has an EV, pink and suitably sized for a 10-year-old. She launched her GND and bought her mini-car after viewing, “like, the most important documentary on climate change. It’s called Ice Age 2: The Meltdown. That’s not me saying it. That’s science!” she explained. “My Green New Deal will cost, like, 93 trillion dollars. Do you know how much that is? Me neither. Because it’s totally worth it. If sea levels keep rising, we won’t be able to drive to Hawaii anymore!" (Not even in her EV!)

For some people EVs are an easy choice. But why the hefty subsidies? Why do the rest of us need mandates and diktats – and a new Henry Ford dictum, letting consumers have any kind of car they want, as long as it’s electric. Regardless of needs or preferences. (But at least we can choose the color.)

More important, who’s actually getting the subsidies? and who’s paying for them? What other costs and unintended consequences are Big Green, Big Government, Big Media and Big Tech keeping quiet about?

A 2021 Tesla Model S Long Range can go 412 miles on a multi-hour charge; its MSRP is $80,000. The Model Y all-wheel-drive is $58,000. A Nissan Leaf is “only” $34,000 but only goes 149 miles. Mileage of course assumes temperatures are moderate and drivers aren’t using the cars’ heater or AC. Similar sticker-shock prices apply to other EV makes and models, putting them out of reach for most families.

To soften the blows to budgets and liberties, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to spend $454 billion to install 500,000 new EV charging stations, replace US government vehicles with EVs, and finance “cash for clunkers” rebates to help at least some families navigate this transportation transformation.

Politicians are being pressured to retain the $7,500 per car federal tax credit (and sweet state tax rebates) now scheduled to lapse once a manufacturer’s cumulative vehicle sales since 2009 reach 200,000. EV drivers also want other incentives perpetuated: free charging stations, access to HOV lanes for plug-ins with only the driver, and not having to pay fees that substitute for gasoline taxes to finance the construction, maintenance and repair of highways they drive on.

A 2015 study found that the richest 20% of Americans received 90% of these generous EV subsidies. No surprise there. Clearly, lobbyists are more valuable than engineers for EV manufacturers and drivers.

This perverse reverse-Robin-Hood system also means subsidies are financed by taxpayers – including millions of working class and minority families, most of which will never be able to afford an EV.

Any cash for clunkers program will exacerbate the problem. By enabling sufficiently wealthy families to trade fossil-fuel cars for EVs, it will result in millions of perfectly drivable cars and trucks that would have ended up in used car lots getting crushed and melted instead. Basic supply and demand laws mean the average cost of pre-owned ICE vehicles will soar by thousands of dollars, pricing even them out of reach for millions of lower-income families. They’ll be forced to buy pieces of junk or ride buses and subways jammed with people they hope won’t be carrying next-generation COVID.

The United States will begin to look like Cuba, which still boasts legions of classic 1960s and ‘70s cars that are cared for and kept on the road with engines, brakes and other parts cannibalized from wrecks and even old Soviet cars. Once the states and federales ban gasoline sales, even that will end.

Perhaps even more ironic and perverse, the “zero emissions vehicle” moniker refers only to emissions in the USA – and only if the electricity required to manufacture and charge ZEVs comes from non-fossil-fuel power plants. Texans now know how well wind turbines and solar panels work when “runaway global warming” turns to record cold and snow. Californians have to dodge future rolling blackouts.

For several years now, production engineers have been pondering how to retool plants from ICE to EV engines. They better start thinking about how to retool and power their entire factories – and our planet.

With many politicians and environmentalists equally repulsed by nuclear and hydroelectric power, having any electricity source will soon be a recurrent challenge. Having reliable, affordable electricity will be a pipe dream. Simply having enough electricity to replace all of today’s coal and gas power generation, internal combustion vehicle fuels, natural gas for cooking, heating and emergency power, coal and gas for smelters and factories, and countless other now-fossil-fuel uses, will be a miracle.

Every home, neighborhood and city will also have to replace existing gas and electric systems to handle the extra loads. More trillions of dollars. There’s also the matter of nasty, toxic, impossible-to-extinguish lithium battery fires – in cars now, and soon in homes, parking garages and backup battery facilities.

We’re talking millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of battery modules, thousands of miles of new transmission lines. They’ll kill birds and bats, disrupt or destroy sensitive habitats, and impair or eradicate hundreds of plant and animal species. As electricity prices rise, US factories won’t be able to compete against China and other nations that don’t have to and will not stop using fossil fuels.

Zero emission fantasies also ignore the essential role of fossil fuels in manufacturing ZEVs (and pretend-renewable energy systems). From mining and processing the myriad metals and minerals for EV battery modules, wiring, drivetrains and bodies, to actually making the components and finished vehicles, every step requires oil, natural gas or coal. Not in California or America perhaps, but elsewhere on Planet Earth, especially Africa, Asia and South America, most often with Chinese companies in leading roles.

A single EV battery module needs some 30 pounds of lithium, plus many other metals and materials totaling at least 1,000 pounds: from commonplace iron, copper, aluminum and petroleum-based plastics, to “exotics” like cobalt and multiple rare earth elements. An EV requires three times more copper than its ICE counterpart; a single wind turbine needs some 3.5 tons of copper per megawatt of electricity.

And every 1,000 tons of finished copper involves mining, crushing, refining and smelting some 125,000 tons of ore – and removing thousands of tons of overburden and surrounding rock just to reach the ore. The same is true for all these other materials, especially rare earths. Try to imagine the cumulative global impacts from all this mining and fossil fuel use – so that AOC, Al Gore, Leo Di Caprio and other wealthy, saintly people can drive “clean, green, climate-friendly” electric cars. (That’s OK. Mini AOC can’t either.)

Even worse, many of these materials are dug up and turned into “virtuous” EVs, wind turbines and solar panels – in China, Congo, Bolivia and other places – with little regard for child labor, fair wages, workplace safety, air and water pollution, toxic and radioactive wastes, endangered species and mined land reclamation. It’s all far away, out of sight and out of mind, and thus irrelevant. And amid all this is the touchy issue of Uighur genocide and their people being sent to re-education/slave labor camps, to help meet China’s mineral, EV and other export markets.

How long will we let real social, environmental and climate justice take a back seat to EV mythology?

Via email

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

The Left declares war on natural gas

The so-called CLEAN Future Act just introduced by the Democrat leaders of the house energy Committee calls for the elimination of gas-fired electric power generation, some immediately, some by 2023 and all by 2035. That is just 14 years from now. Coal-fired power will also be gone, the war on coal finally over with the ultimate solution: complete extermination.

The fifty year history of electric power in America goes like this:

First they came for the nukes in the 70’s. Coal and gas smiled, saying we can do the job, so we built 350,000 MW of coal-fired baseload and gas-fired peakers.

Then they came for coal in the 90’s. Gas smiled, saying we can do the job, so we built 220,000 MW of gas-fired baseload.

Now they have come for gas. Wind and solar are smiling; their trade associations love this law.

But there is a big difference this time. WIND AND SOLAR CAN’T DO THE JOB.

Unlike nuclear, coal and gas, wind and solar only produce power when nature wants them to, not when we need it. Only when the sun shines bright or the wind blows strong. Low wind nights are common. A week without wind power occurs every few years almost everywhere in America.

The wind and solar people say that storage of electricity is the solution to this problem of intermittency, as it is called. In the vast quantities required, the only viable storage technology available to meet the law’s mandate is batteries.

But the storage requirements are stupendous, so the cost of batteries is astronomical. In fact it is economically impossible. (It may also be physically impossible to hook up this many batteries, or even to make them.)

I have a standard cost calculation the applies here. It is imprecise but gives the flavor of the cost. Simply take the average hourly need for juice, with 7 days of storage, at the average cost of grid-scale batteries which today is roughly $1,500,000 per megawatt hour (MWh). There are reasons the real figure might be lower, and reasons it might be much higher, so this is a useful benchmark.

Here’s the math. America uses about 4.2 billion MWh per year, which is roughly 500,000 MWh per hour. For 7 days this works out to 84 million MWh, costing around $120 trillion. That is ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS just for batteries.

Note that this does not include the cost of replacing all the operating coal and gas fired generators with a mind boggling number of wind and solar generators. Nor does it include things like the electrification of all our cars and trucks, our houses, our gas-fired industries, etc., which might double the amount of electricity needed. This would also double the batteries, so we might be looking at $240 trillion.

I mention operating coal-fired generators because the war on coal is far from over; in fact it is only 40% over. We used to burn a billion tons a year but we still burn 600 million. That is a lot to shut down, a lot of mines and a lot of workers, plus the communities that depend on them. And of course the gas industry has a lot of workers and pays huge royalties.

What the Democrat’s CLEAN Future Act calls for simply cannot be done, because there is no feasible cure for intermittency. This raises a very interesting question: Will the electric power utilities finally tell Congress the truth? That it can’t be done? Until now they have carefully avoided doing so, because they are making a fortune building wind and solar power plants. The more they spend the more profit they make.

Many utilities are operating under state laws calling for 100% renewables, but that is in 2045 or 2050. There is no need for the utilities to mention the impossibility now, not when they are making so much money. But the proposed CLEAN Future Act calls for 80% of the coal and gas generation to be gone in just 9 years. This impossibility creates a very different situation for the utilities.

What about the electric power gas industry? They have seen huge growth over the last 20 years, now they are supposed to be gone in just 14 years. That has to hurt. Maybe they will stop smiling and start pointing out that what the proposed law calls for is both impossible and incredibly destructive.

Over 60% of the 4 billion megawatt hours we use each year come from coal and gas. We simply cannot shut that down in the next 9-14 years. The CLEAN Future Act is impossible.

https://www.cfact.org/2021/03/06/the-left-declares-war-on-gas/

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

Australians aren’t keen on electric cars according to survey

A new survey from global auditing and accountancy firm Deloitte shows Aussies have little desire to go electric.

Out of more than 1000 local buyers surveyed only 4 per cent said they would be looking for a fully-electric vehicle as their next purchase.

That compared with 70 per cent who would be looking for a conventional petrol or diesel vehicle and 18 per cent who would be looking for a hybrid vehicle.

In the first two months of this year electric cars made up just 0.3 per cent of new car sales, according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

That figure doesn’t include Tesla sales, as the US maker refuses to report sales numbers to the industry body.

At the moment, Nissan, MG and Hyundai are the only mainstream brands to offer an electric car, although Mitsubishi has a plug-in hybrid. Kia and Mazda both plan to launch EVs soon and Ford has a plug-in planned for later in the year.

Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Audi and BMW all have electric vehicles on sale, but sales are slow.

Deloitte’s research shows just how much of an uphill battle it will be to make the new tech popular in Australia.

Several issues were identified, including the price premium and the lack of charging infrastructure.

Currently the cheapest electric car on sale is the Chinese-built MG ZS EV small SUV priced at $43,990 drive-away. This undercuts the competition by almost $10,000, but is still expensive at $11,500 more expensive than the priciest petrol-powered MG ZS.

The most expensive is the new Porsche Taycan Turbo S at $366,000 drive-away.

Charging infrastructure isn’t widely available in Australia and can be expensive.

Late in 2020 Tesla raised the price of its Supercharger network by 24 per cent. The price hike meant it’s more expensive to fast-charge Teslas than to refill some petrol-powered rivals.

Analysis by electric car experts at EVCentral.com.au shows it would cost $9.78 per 100km to run a Tesla Model 3 if it was charged exclusively on the brand’s Supercharger network.

This compares poorly to petrol powered machines such as the BMW 330i at $8.00 per 100km and the hybrid-powered Lexus IS350h at $6.76.

Earlier this year the global boss of Jeep, Cristian Meunier, revealed to New Corp Australia why he thinks Aussies aren’t ready for electric vehicles.

Meunier said selling fully electric cars would be a challenge in Australia because of a lack of investment and incentives from the government. He said the Australian government needed to help stimulate the investment and building of charging stations and electric car infrastructure before the brand could successfully sell an EV down under.

“The governments are essential for the technology to accelerate and for these new technologies to become more mainstream. We can see that in Europe and markets like California,” said Meunier.

“Australia today is definitely not ready for BEV (Battery Electric Vehicles) because of the lack of infrastructure. And there is no point trying to push something without the help of the government.

Lee Peters, the co-head of Deloitte Australia’s automotive, believes that the initial spark has been ignited in Australia for electric vehicles but buyers need greater reassurance on these issues to fan the flame.

“Awareness among Australian consumers of, and interest in, all-electric, or at the very least hybrid, is certainly there, and is growing.” says Peters.

“In a country where we often need to travel long distances, we shouldn’t be surprised that issues such as range, price and charging opportunities are front of mind, and influencing purchasing choices to largely stay with the technology we all know.”

The survey also revealed online sales of new cars was likely to remain subdued as buyers still preferred the face-to-face experience, with eight out of 10 people expecting to head to a dealership to buy their next vehicle.

Deloitte Australia’s co-head of automotive. Dale McCauley, believes that unlike other retail sectors, purchasing a new car is largely expected to remain in-person for some time.

“Certain aspects of the buying process remain difficult to digitise, so the in-person experience will remain with us for some time. People still want to see, touch, and smell, and drive a vehicle before they buy it,” says McCauley.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/australians-arent-keen-on-electric-cars-according-to-survey/news-story/4c7876f1ad2e3c0f0be6e1b53bcdf231

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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

Hybrid cars can use FOUR TIMES more fuel than makers claim and could be costing owners £450 more a year than expected

Consumer watchdog Which? tested the mpg ratings of 22 popular hybrid cars. On average, the cars were 61 per cent less fuel-efficient than claimed, they said

Plug-in hybrid electric cars can use four times more fuel than makers claim, costing owners an average of £462 per year more than expected, Which? has warned.

The consumer watchdog tested 22 popular hybrid models over 62 miles (100km) and found that they had all been advertised with unrealistic fuel efficiency figures.

On average, hybrid cars were found to be 61 per cent less fuel-efficient than promised.

The worst offender, the BMW X5, was 72 per cent less efficient than claimed, and could cost its owner up to £669 more each year in fuel expenses.

Meanwhile the Toyota Prius, the 'best' of the rest, was still 39 per cent below its official fuel economy rating and could cost up to £171 more to run each year.

Which? said that their tests were tougher than the official ones, because they better represented real-world driving conditions.

A recent report from Greenpeace and Transport & Environment called hybrid cars a 'wolf in sheep's clothing', as they emit 2.5 times the CO2 in reality than in tests.

'A fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid vehicle is an attractive feature for prospective buyers, as many will expect to spend less on fuel and reduce their carbon footprint,' said Which? head of home products and services, Natalie Hitchins.

'Yet our research shows many hybrid models are not as efficient as the manufacturers claim, which means motorists could be spending more on fuel than they anticipated.

'It is clear that the standard set for calculating fuel consumption is flawed and should be reviewed to better reflect real-life driving conditions.

'This would ensure manufacturers advertise more accurate figures and consumers have a better understanding of how much they should expect to spend on fuel.'

The fuel consumption figures advertised by car manufacturers are calculated via the so-called Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure (WLTP) and include consideration of the given model's electric driving range.

This means that the miles per gallon figure achievable in real-world conditions can be much lower than the test figures, resulting in drivers consuming more fuel than they might expect.

Other poor performers in the consumer watchdog's tests included the BMW 2 Series Active Tourer, which was found to be 71 per cent less efficient than claimed.

According to BMW, this vehicle can cover 156.9 miles per gallon (mpg), whereas Which? concluded that it could only do 44.8 mpg and would therefore cost £1,081 a year to fuel, or £772.08 more than the £309 based on the manufacturer's mpg figure.

The Mercedes-Benz B-Class plug-in hybrid, meanwhile, was found only able to cover 78 of the promised 256 miles per gallon, adding an extra £411 to the annual fuel bill.

Annual fuel costs were calculated based on average fuel costs of 121.8p for diesel and 118.5p for petrol and an annual mileage of 9,000 — roughly the average distance travelled by respondents in the Which? annual car survey.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9315969/amp/Vehicles-Hybrid-cars-use-FOUR-TIMES-fuel-makers-claim.html

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

Predicting and planning for the next polar vortex?

We say we can predict and plan for climate chaos 50 years out, but not an imminent vortex?

Duggan Flanakin

Americans know a lot about planning for hurricanes, and about voluntary and mandatory evacuations. They also know that some hurricanes bring major damage to urban and rural areas, and that sometimes (Katrina comes to mind) people’s failure to heed calls to “get outta Dodge” can have disastrous results.

The National Weather Service website explains, whenever a tropical storm forms in the Atlantic or eastern North Pacific [or central North Pacific], the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Hurricane Center issues tropical cyclone advisories at least every six hours. Once a hurricane watch or warning is issued, the advisories come every three hours.

When evacuation orders are issued, there are always a few who opt to “ride out the storm,” for fun and excitement, or fearing the theft of their property more than their possible loss of life. Even then, rescue teams risk their lives in dangerous weather to save those losing their crazy gambles with storms.

On January 11, National Geographic warned, “The polar vortex is coming – raising the odds for intense winter weather,” caused by a sudden major rise in temperatures in the stratosphere above Siberia. This polar vortex “could mean frigid winter weather pummeling the U.S. Midwest and Northeast and the mid-latitude regions of Europe.” Not a word about intense cold in the American southwest.

On January 28, NOAA’s Climate.gov website announced, “The POLAR VORTEX is coming!!!!!” NOAA explained that the impetus for this extremely rare event was a “sudden stratospheric warming” [SSW] that occurred on January 5. Such an event happens about six times per decade, NOAA says.

NOAA acknowledged that parts of Europe had already seen very cold weather in the north and stormy weather in the south, but gave no specific warning that disaster was imminent in any specific parts of the United States.

Shortly thereafter, meteorologist Joe Bastardi predicted in his Twitter feed that “Texas is going to be tested on so many levels” by the coming storm. He acknowledged that NOAA’s own forecasting model prompted comparisons to the disastrous 1899 polar vortex incident that dropped temperatures below zero in every U.S. state.

On February 3, Jennifer Gray at CNN announced, “It’s about to get so cold that boiling water will flash freeze, frostbite could occur within 30 minutes, and it will become a shock to the system for even those who are used to the toughest winters.” She went on to say “the coldest air of the season will be diving south, not leaving anyone out. Every single state in the U.S. – including Hawaii – will reach below freezing temperatures on Monday morning” [February 8].

The next day, Austin’s KXAN-TV issued its own “First Warning: Extended Arctic blast coming to Texas.” Emmy-winning meteorologist David Yeomans noted that his actual first warning had come a month earlier – the day the SSW event had occurred.

Yeomans said the cold front would likely slam into Texas by February 9, “cooling us off dramatically by the middle of next week.” While “this pattern may last for an extended amount of time,” Yeomans predicted just “4 to 5 days where local temperatures will remain in the 30s and 40s into Valentine’s Day weekend.” He concluded that, while “some precipitation appears possible … it is too soon for specifics on this Arctic outbreak and potential winter storm.”

But he did not foresee the impending disaster; nor did most others in the field. And yet actual lowest temperatures in Austin reached 9o F (-13 C) – the lowest in 32 years and just the fifth single-digit low in a century. Not until Valentine’s Day did the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) declare an “energy emergency alert three” that mandated rolling outages.

Texans were clearly not prepared by their federal, state or local governments, or even their local news media outlets, let alone ERCOT, for the magnitude of this polar storm – or for the devastation it could and did cause. People get a warning to prepare prior to hurricanes. But this time there was no urgent demand that people lay in food, turn off or otherwise secure water pipes against a deep freeze, expect water cutoffs, plan for lengthy power and heating outages, and be ready for horrific driving conditions.

Lone Star State public officials are getting slammed for their lack of foresight. But Texans are not alone in this disaster. Over 100,000 Oregonians went all week without electric power days after a snow and ice storm swept through that region. Portland General Electric (PGE) spokesperson Dale Goodman, noted that over 2,000 power lines were still down two days after the storm. “These are the most dangerous conditions we’ve ever seen in the history of PGE,” he lamented.

This is after PGE had worked tirelessly to restore power for over half a million other customers who’d been affected by the polar storm. As in Texas and elsewhere, people there died from carbon monoxide poisoning, food spoiled, and many of the 200,000 Oregon customers who lost service were told they may not get their Internet back for weeks. Oregon is much smaller than Texas, with fewer people and colder weather. Portland’s average February temperature is 10o F cooler than Austin’s.

In the aftermath of this massive storm – which also caused major power outages in Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky and West Virginia – there will be plenty of time to evaluate where forecasts went wrong, assess blame, and determine what damages can and cannot be recovered. Job one right now, however, should be to get people back into their homes, their jobs, their hospitals and their lives. (One Austin hospital lost power and water.) Blame-throwing only gets in the way of human rescue.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has called for an investigation of ERCOT, acknowledging that the power grid curators have been “anything but reliable” over the previous 48 hours. “Far too many Texans are without power and heat for their homes as our state faces freezing temperatures and severe winter weather,” he added. “This is unacceptable.” Well, DUH! But they aren’t the only guilty parties.

Worst of all, the nightmare is far from over. The damages are widespread, and it will be some time before anyone can calculate the actual costs – and the avoidable costs – of this supposedly rare event. Will Texas shrug its shoulders and simply say, “This can’t possibly happen again.” Will Oregonians? Will the entire nation, which will suffer the effects of this loss of energy production and economic vitality in Texas?

Any investigation must begin with the fact that hardly anyone paid attention to warnings that this storm could have major impacts. Perhaps big winter storms need names, like hurricanes do, so that they stand out and can compete with partisan political bickering. Maybe we need a thorough review of all disaster preparedness, including spring floods, summer fires, and summer-autumn hurricanes and tropical storms.

We certainly need better prediction, prevention and preparation – including thinning overgrown forests and clearing out dead, diseased and intensely flammable trees.

Will the American people get this kind of response from their elected officials – or from those charged with direct oversight of our land, water and infrastructure, and increasingly our lives and livelihoods? Or will we spend the next two, four or ten years bickering over trivial matters, like a modern Nero fiddling as our nation falls apart and becomes even easier pickings for Mother Nature and predator nations?

We’ve spent billions on wind turbines and solar panels that were useless when people most needed electricity, instead of on winterizing baseload power generation. We’ve spent billions on “climate crisis” models and fear-mongering – but can’t seem to get winter storm forecasts and warnings right. Too many are paying with their lives. When will we get it right?

Via email

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

Biden-GM Urge Electric Vehicle Transformation, But Experts Say Climate Case Is Weak

As the Texas power grid shudders in part under renewable power, the auto industry is also facing an uncertain transition to green energy. General Motors dropped a bombshell last month that it will build only electric vehicles by 2035. The commitment comes as the Biden administration stocks up on climate activists to transform the economy to fight global warming.

The administration is in line with governments from Europe to China that have declared EVs the future and - for the first time - are mandating which powertrains automakers must use.

But as GM and other automakers spend billions to bring electrics to market, prominent auto and climate experts say they are a solution in search of a problem.

Physicist Frank Jamerson, one of the architects of GM’s EV program, wrote in a 2020 Society of Automotive Engineers paper there is no evidence that gas-fired transportation is changing the climate. An advocate of nuclear power and hydrogen fuel cell development, GM’s ex-chief of electrochemistry said in an interview that “fossil fuels can be used until they run out, in hundreds of years.”

Center for Automotive Research Chairman David Cole, a leading Michigan research firm, concurs: “The climate data has been pushed aside by the politicians. This (climate crisis) idea is being pushed to save the world, and it’s a mistake.” Cole, Jamerson, and Weather Channel founder and meteorologist Joe D’Aleo plan an SAE warming conference in April.

Cole says the enormous investment in EVs, which make up less than 2 percent of U.S. sales today, is creating a two-tiered industry of haves and have nots. Big players like GM, Toyota, and Volkswagen have the resources to invest in a battery-mandated future whereas other companies do not.

“The haves can play that game, and the have-nots cannot. The big boys are investing so that if government is pushing autos towards electrification, they will be the winners.”

Veteran climatologists like John Christy, who oversees satellites that monitor global temperature data, says the EV push is disconnected from scientific evidence.

“There is no climate crisis. If you apply the proposed government regulations to the auto industry, they will have no climate impact,” said Christy, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, in an interview. “Indeed, if you eliminate the U.S. economy from the face of the earth, it will have no impact on global temperature.”

Decades of scientific data indicate that global warming alarms have been inaccurate - including the predicted retreat of the Great Lakes in the Detroit automakers’ back yard.

Still, Big Auto has done an about-face on climate regulations after backing the Trump administration’s challenge to California's controversial CO2 emissions rules.

GM's view now aligns with the Biden campaign which asserts “humans’ contribution to the greenhouse effect is indisputable” and poses an “existential threat to . . . human life.” America’s largest auto manufacturer, GM’s reading of the political tea leaves echoes past strategic moves to align itself with Washington trends.

With the U.S. mired in Iraq in 2008, for example, the General supported the Bush administration’s transition to ethanol-fueled cars by 2022 to reduce foreign oil dependence.

A nuclear physicist by training, Jamerson worked at GM for over 30 years, becoming assistant program manager of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium in 1990. The alliance of GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the Department of Energy aimed to pool resources for a new generation of battery-powered cars.

The consortium was driven in part by concerns over climate change– fears data no longer support, the ex-GM exec says. Jamerson said batteries have progressed since his team developed GM’s first EV prototype, the Impact - but electrics still suffer from range challenges.

“There is no reason to deny the use of fossil fuels,” he said. “Let the marketplace decide.”

Climatologist Christy said mandating EVs would have no impact on climate: “1) The US is only 14 percent of global emissions so what we do won’t affect much. And 2) climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as the models say it is.”

Warming orthodoxy has been challenged by real world evidence. With Great Lakes levels at cyclical lows in 1988, climate alarmists like then-NASA scientist James Hansen projected man-made warming would cause shrinking coastlines. But lake levels today are back to historic, 30 year-cycle highs. Climate models have also erroneously predicted disappearing polar ice caps and record hurricanes.

James Taylor, president of the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, said in an interview that Biden administration plans to power an electrified vehicle fleet with wind turbines in the next decade would require nearly half the land mass of the United States – “the most environmentally ruinous plan we can think of.”

The contrarian data has not slowed political pressure on automakers. The governors of California and Massachusetts have set a ban on gas-powered cars by 2035. Biden promises rules “ensuring 100 percent of new (vehicle) sales . . . will be electrified."

Auto analyst Cole said that, despite years of climate alarmism and government subsidies, consumers have not embraced EVs. Even in England, one of the most popular countries for electrics, EVs made up only 7.4 percent of sales in 2019.

https://townhall.com/columnists/henrypayne/2021/02/28/bidengm-urge-electric-vehicle-transformation-but-experts-say-climate-case-is-weak-n2585406

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

Biden Energy 'Pipe Dream' Will 'Bankrupt' Us

President Joe Biden's unwinding of American energy independence under the Trump administration will ultimately "bankrupt the country," according to Trump economic adviser Stephen Moore.

"The idea that we are going to eliminate fossil fuels is a pipe dream," Moore said Sunday during an appearanc on "The Cats Roundtable" on WABC 770 AM-N.Y. "We're not going to go from 80% fossil fuels down to zero in the next 15 years, or else we will bankrupt our country."

Democrats are arguing for renewable energy, but Moore said America can allow the technology to evolve and become better and more affordable as we use the resources that have made America energy independent under former President Donald Trump.

"We need to use the energy that we have," Moore told host John Catsimatidis. "We have more oil, more gas and more coal than any other country. We've got 500 years worth of coal. We have at least 200 years of natural gas. We’re not running out of this stuff."

Moore said Biden needs to get with the "program."

"Trump used to say to me, 'I don't want America to be energy independent; I want America to be energy dominant,'" Moore said. "And we should. "We should be the energy-dominant country in the world."

Even the electric cars environmentalists are seeking are going to require use of fossil fuels in generating the electricity, Moore said.

"I don't have a problem with electric cars, but people have to realize you have to have electric power to charge the batteries for electric cars," he said. "That takes coal and oil.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/stephen-moore-fossil-fuels-gas-oil/2021/02/21/id/1010912/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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

Biden regime obstructs huge copper mine

Australian mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP’s plan to build an enormous new copper mine in Arizona has faced a setback after the United States government reversed a decision to allow a necessary land swap.

On Tuesday morning, the US Forest Service rescinded its publication of an environmental impact study that cleared the way for the transfer of a 980-hectare parcel of land at Oak Flat, Arizona, to the miners’ Resolution Copper joint venture.

Resolution, which is 55 per cent owned by Rio Tinto and 45 per cent owned by rival BHP, said it was evaluating the Forest Service’s decision.

“In the meantime, we will continue to engage in the process determined by the US government and are committed to ongoing consultation with Native American Tribes and local communities,” it said in a statement.

Resolution Copper says its proposed underground copper mine has the potential to supply nearly 25 per cent of US copper demand for 40 years.

But the project is being fought by the San Carlos Apache tribe, which fears the mine will impact sacred and actively utilised religious land at Oak Flat, known as Chi’chil Bildagoteel.

The San Carlos Apache Tribe, which has 17,000 members, is one of 11 Native American tribes with land within or near the land exchange, including the Oak Flat camp ground, Apache Leap,

After receiving “significant input” from stakeholders and the wider public, the US Department of Agriculture said it had directed the Forest Service to withdraw the earlier decision and conduct a “thorough review”.

“The [department] has concluded that additional time is necessary to fully understand concerns raised by Tribes and the public and the project’s impacts to these important resources and ensure the agency’s compliance with federal law,” it said.

Under the US National Environmental Protection Act, consultations with Native American groups to date concerning the area’s historical, cultural and religious significance have been the responsibility of the US Forest Service, not Resolution Copper.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/rio-tinto-bhp-s-copper-mine-project-on-apache-land-faces-fresh-blow-20210302-p576zy.html

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

Is an electric car better for the planet?

Only under optimistic assumptions. So why bother?

Which is better for Earth: an electric or gas-powered vehicle? The answer to this question might seem blindingly obvious: Of course electric cars must be better for the environment, because they don’t have exhausts and so don’t emit greenhouse gasses as they drive. However, electric vehicles (EVs) aren't perfect, and they come with their own set of polluting problems. Notably, their batteries contain components, such as lithium, that require a significant amount of energy to source and extract.

But battery production is just one part of an electric car's life span. A 2014 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the entire life cycle of an EV's emissions, from mining the metals required for the batteries to producing the electricity needed to power them, and then compared this with the average emissions of a gas-powered vehicle. The team found that when electric vehicles are charged with coal-powered electricity, they’re actually worse for the environment than conventional gasoline cars.

In much of the world, however, national grids are now clean enough for EVs to beat their gasoline-powered counterparts when it comes to pollution and greenhouse-gas emissions during their lifetimes.

"Only when connected to the dirtiest, coal-heavy electric grids do gasoline internal combustion engines become comparable to EVs on a greenhouse gas basis," said Colin Sheppard, a researcher with expertise in energy and transportation systems engineering at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California.

There are very few places where electric grids are still supplied entirely or mainly by coal. China is one of them; in 2019 it was estimated that 58% of the country’s power supply came from coal and it’s likely that some parts of China are still entirely supplied by coal. However, China’s grid is improving with more investments in renewables – for example, it has twice the wind energy capacity as the U.S. and it builds more solar panels per year than any other countries, according to Nature magazine.

This pattern of improvement — more renewable energies and fewer fossil fuels — is a global one and it helps to boost the environmental credentials of electric vehicles, said Gordon Bauer, an electric vehicle researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation in San Francisco. "As grids become greener during the lifetime of an electric vehicle, it's only going to get better."

In a study published this month in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Sheppard modeled a hypothetical future scenario in which all cars were electric. "We wanted to understand what the energy, infrastructure and emissions implications might be if all passenger vehicles are electrified," Sheppard told Live Science. Bauer also collaborated with Sheppard on the project. Their findings come out strongly in favor of an electric vehicle future.

For example, Sheppard calculated that if all privately owned vehicles in the U.S. were electric, it would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the country by 46% annually (0.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide) compared with conventionally gas-powered cars. This reduction could be increased even further if those vehicles were subject to so-called "controlled charging," a technique also known as "smart charging," in which vehicles are recharged at strategically chosen times to minimize the financial cost of generating electricity. (For instance, charging at night is often less pricey than during the day; this strategy also favors more efficient energy-producing plants that produce cheaper electricity.) If all privately owned electric cars were charged in such a way, the emissions savings could rise to 49% annually.

These estimates are based on what Sheppard admits is an "ambitious" imagining of the U.S.'s future energy portfolio. This future envisions a country with a lot more renewable energy, but which still hasn't reached the goal of zero carbon, or having a national grid that doesn't contribute to climate change, he said. There is a considerable amount of political will and practical change that needs to happen to make this scenario possible, but it’s still helpful to map out the full theoretical potential electric vehicles under these circumstances.

In short, it's far easier to argue in favor of buying an EV than a gas- or diesel-powered vehicle from an environmental perspective. But what about cost? Aren't electric vehicles too expensive for most people to afford?

A 2020 report from the consumer rights group, Consumer Reports, suggests this is also changing. The paper estimated that the per-mile repair and maintenance costs over the lifetime of an EV is a little less than half that of traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines. This is largely because electric motors have just one moving part, compared to traditional engines which often have dozens. This means fewer components need to be replaced in an EV, resulting in significant savings albeit not at the point of sale.

"It may sound radical right now, but by the time 2030 rolls around, I think the problem will be about how quickly manufacturers can make them," Bauer said.

In a recent U.S.-wide analysis carried out by Bauer, he concluded that the high rate of depreciation for new electric vehicles will lead to larger benefits for lower-income households that are more likely to buy used cars. This, along with other factors driving price reductions, such as technological innovations and increased supplier competition, will mean that an EV should cost the same as a conventional gasoline-powered car for almost all income levels by approximately 2029, Bauer found. Furthermore, Bauer calculated that by 2030, low-income households in the U.S. stand to save $1,000 per year from fuel savings if they were to switch to an EV.

https://www.livescience.com/electric-cars-environment.html

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

Why Greenies and the Liberal Media Don't Want You to Read About Canada Amid Texas' Deep Freeze

As Texas has plunged into a deep freeze due to widespread power outages after a historic and brutal winter storm, maybe we should look to Canada regarding how they keep their power grids running amid frigid conditions. It’s not what you think. It actually proves our point about energy production, which is why the liberal media and the environmental Left probably don’t want you to read this thread about Alberta, Canada.

How are they able to keep the lights on? It’s simple: coal and gas. The two sectors the Left wants to ax from our production capacity. I’ve seen all the so-called fact checks. Wind power isn’t why Texas lost power. Renewable energy isn’t the reason, except that it is. Sorry, the facts are the facts. This push for heavily subsidized wind energy that’s wholly unreliable is what caused the blackouts. The turbines did freeze up. and the wind was responsible for over 40 percent of Texas’ energy. In short, the California model is a good foundational policy to give your residents unreliable energy. The Wall Street Journal torched this green energy push, aptly noting that this policy has put more people in danger than so-called global climate change.

“Wind’s share has tripled to about 25% since 2010 and accounted for 42% of power last week before the freeze set in. About half of Texans rely on electric pumps for heating, which liberals want to mandate everywhere,” they wrote. “But the pumps use a lot of power in frigid weather. So while wind turbines were freezing, demand for power was surging.”

Alex Epstein had a good thread about how Alberta keeps the power running, noting that its grid is run on 43 percent coal and 49 percent gas.

“The media want you to believe that TX's failure to handle spiking demand during cold temps proves that a fossil-fueled grid can't handle such a challenge,” Epstein wrote on Twitter. “They don't want you to know about Alberta, CA--where a fossil-fueled grid handled a far bigger challenge with relative ease.”

Alberta also endured a record-high energy demand. The province managed because they invested in fossil fuels and not wind, which Epstein noted is “unreliable.” And both Texas and Alberta work on isolated grids. This is a very fixable issue.

“Alberta proves with 100% certainty that coal and gas plants can easily run in far more adverse conditions than Texas had. That's why the anti-fossil fuel media do not want you to know the story of Alberta,” he added.

Nothing will beat fossil fuels in terms of efficiency and reliability. It works. What doesn’t work are these so-called alternatives that conk out when some snow hits.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2021/02/23/with-texas-frozen-heres-why-greenies-probably-dont-want-you-to-read-about-albe-n2585183

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

Global warming could plunge Europe into a deep freeze (??)

The Atlantic Ocean current that drives the Gulf Stream is at its weakest for more than 1,000 years - and human-induced climate change is to blame.

Known formally as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), it is the driving force which brings warm water from the Gulf of Mexico up to the UK and is responsible for mild winters in Western Europe.

Scientists determined that in 2015 it to had slowed by at least 15 percent since 1950, but the latest work paints a picture of how it will develop long term.

Experts warn that by 2100 the AMOC could weaken by as much as 45 per cent, bringing humanity dangerously close to a 'tipping point', resulting in devastating weather conditions across the world.

Western Europe would face colder winters, while droughts, storms and heatwaves will become more common. Sea levels would rise along the eastern US coast, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The AMOC was key to the plot of the 2004 film 'The Day After Tomorrow,' which depicted the current coming to an abrupt stop and triggering catastrophic storms worldwide.

Although the movie is deemed science fiction, the study by scientists from the Potsdam Institute, Ireland's Maynooth University and University College London suggests it could become a reality if greenhouse emissions are not curbed.

Study author Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research PIK said: 'The Gulf Stream System works like a giant conveyor belt, carrying warm surface water from the equator up north, and sending cold, low-salinity deep water back down south.

'It moves nearly 20 million cubic metres of water per second, almost a hundred times the Amazon flow.

Professor Rahmstorf added: 'If we continue to drive global warming, the Gulf Stream System will weaken further - by 34 to 45 percent by 2100 according to the latest generation of climate models.

'This could bring us dangerously close to the tipping point at which the flow becomes unstable.'

His colleague Levke Caesar explained: 'The northward surface flow of the AMOC leads to a deflection of water masses to the right, away from the US east coast.

'This is due to Earth's rotation that diverts moving objects such as currents to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere.

'As the current slows down, this effect weakens and more water can pile up at the US east coast, leading to an enhanced sea level rise.'

Direct data from the AMOC is hard to obtain so researchers collected information from a variety of proxy sources dating back around 1,600 years.

It backs up previous findings from the same team which found in 2018 that the ocean current has slowed by 15 per cent since the mid-20th century.

'In 20 to 30 years it is likely to weaken further, and that will inevitably influence our weather, so we would see an increase in storms and heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rises on the east coast of the US,' Professor Rahmstorf said.

The new study puts this figure into stark perspective by comparing its meandering pace with that of the last millennium and a half.

Until the 1800s, it was relatively stable but the current declined after the so-called 'Little Ice Age' ended in 1850.

Temperatures dropped low enough that the River Thames completely froze over and records show Londoners crossing the waterway on foot.

The last total shutdown of the AMOC is believed to have occurred at the end of the last proper Ice Age around 12,000 years ago, where temperatures in western Europe plummeted by up to 10°C.

This was likely not due to human impact as the Industrial Revolution had yet to reach full tilt.

But by the 1950s the AMOC had slowed severely as huge amounts of pollution disrupted its formation.

Increased rainfall and enhanced melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet caused by global warming add fresh water to the ocean which reduces the salinity and density of the water.

This subsequently prevents the warm water which has travelled north from sinking as it cools and this breaks the convection cycle, ultimately weakening the flow of the AMOC.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9300711/The-Gulf-Stream-weakest-1-000-YEARS-climate-change.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

Please consider "NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun Activity".

“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.

“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.

The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.

If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?

All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.

Incredibly Complex Systems

See the problem? Alarmists take one variable, CO2 that is only a tiny part of extremely long cycles and make projections far into to the future based off it.

When I was in grade school, the alarmists were worried about global cooling. Amusingly, I recall discussing in science class the need to put soot on the arctic ice to melt it to stop the advance of glaciers.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions.

NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption” to cool the planet.” Its article proclaimed, “Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.”

https://finance.townhall.com/columnists/mikeshedlock/2019/01/30/amidst-global-warming-hysteria-nasa-expects-global-cooling-n2540500

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

Biden Increases the Cost of Carbon, Setting the Stage for Drastic Climate Rules

For four long years, Democrats were out of power. It must have seemed like an eternity to them, given the frenetic activity they’ve been engaged in since January 20.

Like a starving man walking into a banquet room full of food, Democrats can’t seem to decide what to eat first. So, they’re trying to eat everything at once.

The next three months will see an unbelievable amount of cash getting shoveled out the door in Washington. Two trillion for pandemic relief, another 2 trillion for a massive infrastructure bill, an attempt to reinvent Obamacare, an immigration bill, student loan debt — and they’ll just be getting started.

Indeed, it’s not just the president and his Congress who will be busy. The green geeks at the Environmental Protection Agency have had 4 years to watch the planet heat up and sizzle. That’s got to eat at them. They have so much pent-up energy, we should probably figure out a way to tap into it and run Los Angeles or New York for a couple of days.

The EPA is about to become very, very busy.

Politico:

President Joe Biden on Friday restored an Obama-era calculation on the economic cost of greenhouse gases, a step that will make it easier for his agencies to approve aggressive actions to confront climate change.

But the administration stopped short, for now, of boosting the cost figure to higher levels that economists and climate scientists say are justified by new research.

The interim figure — $51 for every ton of carbon released into the atmosphere — is well above the $8 cost used under former President Donald Trump, who declined to factor the global impacts of climate pollution into his calculation. It’s on par with a price based on analyses undertaken between 2010 and 2016 under former President Barack Obama, whose administration was first to calculate the figure known as the social cost of carbon.

People who hate capitalism are calculating how much the capitalists have to pay for “polluting” the planet with CO2? I smell a rat. A slimy, green, rat.

I confess to not having any expertise when it comes to calculations like this. I’m sure Biden’s green-eyeshade guys could trot out their charts, and graphs, and calculations showing us all exactly what they are basing their estimate of $51 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions on. There is probably no silliness like factoring in racism and oppression or gender inequities into the cost of CO2. So we have to take Biden at his word that his staff really thunk this through.

The social cost of carbon is an effort to quantify the economic and societal damage from greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decades. The figure will be baked into the administration’s number-crunching on the costs and benefits of a wide array of regulations.

Friday’s notice, posted on the Office of Management and Budget website, fulfills a promise Biden made on Inauguration Day when he signed an executive order on climate change that called for a recalculation of the social cost of carbon, which the Trump administration had sharply reduced.

The “social cost” of carbon? Maybe I spoke too soon about the silliness.

“This is to be celebrated for getting the social cost of carbon out from being a political football, which is what Trump did, but it’s Step One. Step Two is restore a transparent process and to return the social cost of carbon to the frontier of climate science and economics,” said Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist.

When you’re talking about other people’s money, being at the “frontier of climate science and economics” is so easy. There’s no need to be careful or even realistic in your estimates. You’re on the “frontier.” There’s no time to be cautious. The earth is in danger and only the ministrations of the high priests of climate can save us.

Using carbon as a whipping boy for our climate problems is more political than scientific. But that’s what climate change advocacy has degenerated into and it will continue to grind us down until they get their way.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2021/02/28/biden-increases-the-cost-of-carbon-setting-the-stage-for-drastic-climate-rules-n1428986

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

US imperialism goes green

Environmental activists and NGOs are demanding that the president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, be investigated by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the possible crime of ecocide – that is, for devastating the Amazon rainforest and its indigenous inhabitants, with knock-on consequences for global warming were the rainforest to be turned into savannah due to excess logging.

Given the putative urgency of tackling climate change, it is worth asking whether the lengthy legal process of indicting and extraditing a sitting president of a major power really is the most expeditious and effective means of addressing global warming. From another point of view, however, the attempt to charge Bolsonaro for international crimes could not be better timed.

In Washington, DC, the newly installed administration of President Joe Biden is looking for ways to restore the credibility of the US as a global leader following the inward turn of Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump. The reputation of liberal globalism that was championed by President Barack Obama, under whom Biden had previously served as vice president, has since been badly tarnished. This is due, not least, to the legacy of ruinous wars across North Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Greater Middle East. In his closing address as US president, Donald Trump pointedly noted that he was the first US president since Jimmy Carter not to launch any new wars during his term in office.

The wars launched by Trump’s predecessors were all variously justified by liberal idealist aims of relieving human suffering, liberating women from Islamist tyranny, overthrowing dictatorship, protecting embattled ethnic minorities, and spreading democracy and human rights. These war aims were so broad and nebulous, and so inattentive to the most basic questions of power and conflict, that they inevitably metastasised into ‘forever wars’, in which war became the justification for more war. The failure of earlier cycles of liberal intervention justified further intervention to rectify the problems caused by previous campaigns, thereby creating the doom loop of endless conflict. Given this disastrous legacy, the prospect of recycling liberal humanitarian globalism as green globalism offers the Biden administration some distinct opportunities for political gain.

Consider the political opportunities afforded by green globalism. Global problems necessitate and justify global power and a global reach, and there is no grander global challenge than climate change. Climate change provides the perfect pretext for the global ambitions of a superpower eager to re-establish its globalist credentials. It is well known that climate change threatens poor developing countries the most, as they are the least able to adapt – thereby providing a potential pretext for far-reaching oversight over poorer countries, as well as providing a writ for interference in their internal affairs should they fail to abide by internationally imposed climate standards. Just as many liberal globalists saw international law and mega transnational trade deals as too important to be left in the hands of voters, so too the dangers of climate change demand that new, remote institutions be established at the global level – a level that also happens to be safely remote from the electoral vagaries of popular accountability.

Green globalism would also offer some advantages over the old liberal globalism. Given the scale and likely duration of global warming across this century, climate change provides an indefinite justification for prolonging US globalism far into this century. The vast scope of climate change also has the added benefit that there is no single figurehead – no Saddam, no Gaddafi, no Soleimani – whose death or overthrow risks undercutting the justification for continued projection of power.

Much like liberal globalism, green globalism can also be justified by reference to easing the plight of beleaguered minorities – the more powerless and beleaguered the better, as this makes it far easier to speak on their behalf. In this respect the indigenous peoples of the Amazon offer an advantage over, say, the Kurds, as the Amazonian tribes have no desire to establish an independent state – and therefore claiming to act on their behalf does not risk the same kinds of geopolitical shocks that sponsoring secessionist movements does.

The attempt to fuse liberal intervention and green globalism has been brewing for a while. The staunchly interventionist former French foreign minister and founder of Medecins Sans Frontières, Bernard Kouchner, called for military intervention in Myanmar back in 2008 under the terms of the liberal ‘responsibility to protect’, claiming that the Burmese junta of the day was unable to deal with the devastating aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in the Irrawaddy delta. There has been plenty of discussion of potential deployments of ‘green helmets’ to protect the planet, analogous to the way that the UN’s ‘blue helmets’ peacekeepers protect people trapped in conflict. Legal theorists have even advocated repurposing the old trusteeship institutions of the UN. Originally conceived as supranational mechanisms of tutelage that would substitute for the old colonial empires in overseeing dependent peoples in their transition to national self-government, it is suggested that such trusteeship could be now be justified afresh on environmental grounds rather than on the grounds of the alleged political immaturity of specific peoples.

Seen in this light, the script being used to indict Bolsonaro is a familiar one: a neo-fascist strongman, insensitive to international opinion, is cruelly trampling over the rights of minorities in his country and threatening global stability in the process. If we imagine transplanting this scenario from Latin America to the Middle East, we can very clearly see that we have been here many times before, and it is precisely this very same script that has legitimated forever wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria. We should be strongly suspicious of attempts to recreate globalist power projection in new guises. To be sure, Brazil is too large to invade, and liberal globalists always preferred preying on relatively small and isolated nations such as Libya and Iraq. Nonetheless, what we are seeing in the attempt to prosecute Bolsonaro through the ICC is a clear portent of a new morally charged green globalism.

As the experience of the past 30 years makes clear, the Manichean denunciation, criminalisation of national leaders and moralisation of international relations heads in one direction only. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal of the 1930s and 1940s went in tandem with the US’ emergence as a global superpower. Does Joe Biden’s Green New Deal presage a new green empire today?

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/17/us-imperialism-goes-green/

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

UK: The Cumbria coal mine must go ahead

The green blob's attempt to reverse a democratic decision is a disgrace.

When plans for a coal mine were recently given the go-ahead by Cumbria County Council, green campaigners, journalists and quangocrats were outraged. They demanded that MPs, ministers and the prime minister intervene, and overrule the decision. They complained that if the decision is allowed to stand, Britain will be unable to meet its 2050 Net Zero target. And, worse still, Britain will lose credibility at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) to be hosted in Glasgow later this year, they said. In response to all the green outrage, Cumbria County Council has stated it will be reviewing its decision.

This demonstrates the undue influence of the green lobby in British politics. And it shows why its power to distort policymaking priorities needs to be reined in.

The planned coal mine is a remarkable proposition, given the predominance of green orthodoxy in UK politics. In 2019, for instance, Cumbria County Council was one of many to declare a ‘climate emergency’. Yet the same council’s development control committee also granted approval for the coal-mine development – twice – in 2019. Though this may seem like a contradiction, as it does to many greens, the planning consent was granted by a democratically appointed council that believed the proposed mine could be built in accordance with its Net Zero commitments, and that ‘it provides national, local or community benefits which clearly outweigh the likely impacts’. Whereas greens see only CO2 emissions, local governments, despite overbearing green ideology, are still occasionally forced to think about jobs, the economy and industry.

Everyone should be happy. The planning consent for the project, which will create 500 jobs, requires the mine to close by 2050. And the coal mined from under the Cumbrian coast will not be used in Britain’s power stations, but in steel production. You can’t build wind turbines without steel, the production of which requires coking coal. And with the Net Zero agenda requiring the near doubling of Britain’s wind-farm fleet – and likely more – that new steel is a necessity.

But the chair of the Climate Change Committee (CCC), John Gummer (aka Lord Deben), disagrees. ‘It is not the CCC’s role to act as a regulator or a planning authority’, said Gummer in a letter to communities secretary Robert Jenrick, but the new coal mine ‘will commit the UK to emissions from coking coal, for which there may be no domestic use after 2035’.

Gummer’s objection stems from the CCC’s Sixth Carbon Budget, in which it insists ‘that UK ore-based steelmaking be near-zero emissions by 2035’. This will be achieved through a ‘combination of hydrogen direct reduction and electric-arc-furnace technology’. Green academic activists also contend, in a letter to the prime minister, that these experimental technologies, if successfully developed, could ‘produce fossil-free steel by 2026’.

Innovation in the field of fossil-free steel production is surely a good thing. But it should be clear that a mere promise to deliver is a poor basis for strategic policymaking. Green technocrats and green activists alike put the cart before the horse in two respects. First, technology should be delivered, and second it should be proven economically viable, before being included in policymaking decisions. The technocrats at the CCC, and the assorted academic activists, have no skin in this game. They are unaccountable should technological development, as is likely, come up short.

The potential shortcomings are not trivial. Even if developments, such as the use of hydrogen in steel making, do arrive, the problems of producing hydrogen in sufficient quantities and at an economic price have yet to be solved. No matter what green ideologues claim, coal is always going to be cheaper, barring government intervention, than hydrogen produced by renewable energy sources. Moreover, the electrification of everything (from transport to domestic heating) mandated by Net Zero will then create enormous demand and competition for electricity among an ever-increasing number of consumers, from electric vehicle owners to hydrogen producers. The prospect of Britain being left underpowered, economically paralysed and globally uncompetitive is extremely real.

The whole of climate policy to date has put the cart before the horse: emissions targets are set before the existence of a means to achieve them. Likewise, policies, with far-reaching consequences, are made law before there is public support for them. As I pointed out on spiked, the UK Climate Assembly was one such after-the-fact attempt to manufacture consensus for the Net Zero agenda. One of the academics at the centre of the assembly, Rebecca Willis, is also one of the academics behind the letter to the prime minister, urging him to cancel the coal mine. She used to be the director of the Green Alliance, which has also published a briefing document for MPs, authored by Willis, which repeats the claims that steel can be made fossil-free, on the basis of experimental technologies.

Yet Willis only has to look as far as the Green Alliance blog to find a robust argument for the limited utility of hydrogen – it is expensive, unwieldy and unfeasible. Moreover, Willis also proposes using natural gas in furnaces. But gas from where? Not from fracking, obviously, given the Green Alliance ruled that out, too. The likely result of Willis et al’s lobbying will be net-zero domestic energy production, net-zero domestic steel production and net-zero domestic wind-farm manufacturing – it all being displaced by Net Zero policies to where production is possible.

Yet, it does not matter to Willis and the Green Alliance, or Gummer and the CCC, that their inconsistent claims rest on unproven technologies, or that the consequences of basing policy on incautious speculation may be hardship for millions. The fate of the coal mine is only of symbolic significance to them. It is a means for them to assert their political power. If it really were a debate about which industrial techniques best serve society’s needs, green technocrats, academics and lobbying organisations would accept the shortcomings of their arguments and the prematurity of their preferred technologies with respect to the policy-target deadlines they themselves demanded were made law.

Despite local support for the coal mine and the opportunities it will create, it looks likely that Cumbria County Council’s decision will be made for them by the sheer weight of the billionaire-backed green blob. If it was not for that powerful, unaccountable and self-serving lobby, and its influence over the UK government, the routine decision-making of a humble local council would be of no consequence to even the next county, let alone the international community.

Let’s hope, though, that Cumbria County Council does not give in to the pressure of international agreements and the Net Zero agenda, and the nexus of academia and lobbying that support them. There is a debate to be had about climate change and how we deal with the problem, including weighing up the pros and cons of coal use. But that debate has been distorted by the hysterical framing of the problem by greens, and the implausible solutions they offer.

Glasgow may be the place that the green blob has decided to congeal this year, but it is in Cumbria that the reality of what it decides in Glasgow is exposed.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/02/16/the-cumbria-coal-mine-must-go-ahead

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC) Saturdays only

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

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

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