Another reason the wind industry is demanding more handouts: Wind turbine failure rates are rising

Unexpected and increasing wind turbine failure rates, largely in newer and bigger models, are savaging the profits of some of the world’s biggest manufacturers, as Siemens Gamesa, GE and Vestas report heavy repair and maintenance losses.

Faulty components created a €472 million ($A28 million) hole in Siemens Gamesa’s December quarter result, making up more than half of the nearly billion-euro loss for the period. Of that total, €187 million was due to a reduction in revenue with the remainder due to warranty provisioning.

The wind turbine maker said a “negative trend” of failure rates from turbines are causing higher than expected maintenance costs and warranty call-outs. It did not specify which components are affected.

Siemens Gamesa ended the year with a quarterly loss of €884 million ($A1.4 billion), more than double that of the same period the prior year, and net debt of €1.9 billion.

Write-downs in goodwill and the inclusion of integration and restructuring costs come as the company prepares to delist and integrate with Siemens Energy.

“The group’s financial performance in Q1 23 was materially impacted by the outcome of the company’s periodic monitoring and technical failure assessment of its installed fleet,” the company said in its quarterly results.

“The expected cash impact during FY23 amounts to a mid-double-digit euro million figure.”

Vestas has added €210 million in warranty provisions for repairs in the December quarter, as rising call outs and higher upgrade costs bite at the Danish company, too.

Vestas also said its lost production factor is rising towards 4 per cent due to the number of “extraordinary” repairs and upgrades.

GE blamed its $US2.2 billion annual loss on rising warranty provisions from its wind division in the September quarter, which contributed to a 17 per cent drop in revenue.

Too big too fast?

Advancements in materials, manufacturing and design techniques, and operations and maintenance tools led to a technical revolution in wind energy, allowing bigger and bigger machines to be installed.

Wind turbines and their blades have rapidly been upsizing, with the average rotor diameter in the US reaching 127.5 metres in 2021, while the largest in the world is a 13.6 megawatt (MW) offshore wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 252 metres.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-turbine-failure-rates-are-rising-has-the-industry-gone-too-big-too-fast/?mc_cid=8a7a6193db&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus warns Americans to 'wake up' after 'woke' Silicon Valley Bank goes bust - because it was 'more concerned about global warming than shareholder returns'

The co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, says Americans need to 'wake up' to the reality that the US economy is facing tough times following the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

Marcus also laid some of the blame for the bank's failure with the Biden administration over prioritizing 'global warming' instead of shareholder returns.

He argued that the collapse of the bank shows the US economy is not as strong as President Biden has suggested.

Marcus criticized the bank's officials for selling off their stock before the collapse, and lamented the fact that many Americans lost their money in what he called a 'woke bank.'

'I can't wait for Biden to get on the speech again and talk about how great the economy is and how it's moving forward and getting stronger by the day. And this is an indication that whatever he says is not true.

'And maybe the American people will finally wake up and understand that we're living in very tough times, that, in fact, that a recession may have already started. Who knows? But it doesn't look good,' Marcus said on Fox News, on Saturday.

Marcus blamed the Biden administration for pushing banks to prioritize 'diversity and all of the woke issues' over shareholder returns and suggested that a focus on social policies is now causing banks to be badly run, and failing to protect their shareholders and their own employees.

'I feel bad for all of these people that lost all their money in this woke bank. You know, it was more distressing to hear that the bank officials sold off their stock before this happened. It's depressing to me. Who knows whether the Justice Department would go after them? They're a woke company, so I guess not. And they'll probably get away with it,' he continued.

Marcus then went on to warn how the US economy is in trouble, with the Federal Reserve raising rates and inflation going in the wrong direction.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11849277/Home-Depot-founder-Bernie-Marcus-warns-Americans-wake-woke-Silicon-Valley-Bank-goes-bust.html

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

KY Wants to Prevent Coal Plant Closures Invited By Net-Zero Policies

As net-zero policies wreak havoc federally, individual states desire to stymie its ruinous consequence.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky wants to implement measures to shield their electric grid from instability wrought by unreliable, costly renewable energy adoption.

The General Assembly is deliberating legislation, Senate Bill 4, to remedy this issue. If passed, the bill would require the Public Service Commission to prove coal plant retirement won’t negatively impact grid reliability and resilience. All the while having no adverse impact on electric utility rate affordability.

As of this writing, the bill passed the state senate by a 25-8 vote. It now awaits a vote in the Kentucky House of Representatives. It currently enjoys popular support from lawmakers and could advance before Wednesday—the final day of the 2023 General Assembly session.

Historically, coal production has kept Kentucky’s energy costs down. Nevertheless, forced transition to unreliable sources like solar and wind has resulted in higher energy bills–as seen elsewhere in the U.S.

Even natural gas, a reliable source unleashed during the Trump administration, can’t fully meet the Commonwealth’s immediate demands.

Kelly Craft, former U.S. Ambassador to Canada and a 2023 Kentucky gubernatorial candidate, discussed this in a major state publication, writing, “As coal power shut down, it has been replaced by natural gas and, while I support an “all of the above” energy policy, natural gas has limitations. Natural gas price volatility drove Kentuckians’ cost of electricity to all-time highs last year.”

Despite coal’s staying power, powerful utility companies operating in the Bluegrass State are actively working to defeat this reasonable measure. This isn’t surprising because investor-owned utilities seek to benefit from adopting a net-zero carbon grid by 2050.

“If this bill passes, we would not be able to close a fossil fuel plant. That isn’t hyperbole,” Rocco D'Ascenzo, deputy general counsel Duke Energy Kentucky, said of SB4.

Louisville Gas and Electric Vice President Kent Blake remarked his company has “every incentive in the world to keep coal-fired generation as long as it’s reasonably possible,” but argued retiring coal-fire plants would ultimately be good for consumers.

“When we bring a case forward that says now is the time to retire a given coal-fired unit, you can believe that now is the time,” he said.

These comments contrast other industry-wide statements opposing the move away from fossil fuels.

In June 2022, the Utilities District of Western Indiana published a Capacity Alert warning about potential rolling blackouts and blamed shortages, in part, “due in part to the closing of coal-fired generation plants across the country.”

Even the Washington Post mused, “The sudden warnings [of rolling outages] have surprised even those who were sounding an alarm. That’s because… the early retirement of fossil fuel plants has accelerated the destabilization of the grid.”

State Senator Robby Mills, a Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee member and sponsor of SB4, says his bill will offer oversight on this issue and give Kentuckians a seat at the table.

“Grid operators like PJM and MISO have been warning that this hasty transition to renewables is putting our electric grid at risk,” Mills said in a statement to Townhall.com. “Kentuckians need a reliable source of energy that will keep the power grid stable and electricity rates affordable. We, as policymakers, owe that to our constituents."

Tucker Davis, a former Interior Department official and current Kentucky Coal Association president, warned Biden’s energy policies will have negative downstream effects on regular Kentuckians already paying exorbitant costs to heat and power their homes.

“The reason electricity rates have been on the rise in Kentucky is because of the Obama/Biden Administration’s “War on Coal.” These reckless federal policies have forced utilities to replace coal with more costly, unreliable alternatives and pass those costs on to ratepayers,” Davis remarked in an email to Townhall.com. “When it comes to the energy security of our Commonwealth, these decisions should be made here in Kentucky, not in a corporate board room.”-

Coal plant retirements undergird the wasteful climate bill known as the Inflation Reduction Act. S&P Global elaborated, “Of the 58.7 GW of coal plant capacity projected for retirement by 2030, about 24.3 GW, or 41.4%, are due to the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, making coal less competitive than other resources…”

As a result, it would be unwise for individual states— including Kentucky–to pursue untenable, net-zero policies.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a regulatory authority tasked with reducing risk to and securing electric grid reliability, warned several years ago that “an accelerated retirement of coal-fired and nuclear plants could lead to power outages, temporary shortfalls in surplus generation, and transmission problems.”

Per the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), coal remains king in the Bluegrass State.

The agency reports, “In 2021, coal-fired power plants supplied 71% of Kentucky's electricity generation, the fourth-largest share among the states after West Virginia, Missouri, and Wyoming. Historically, coal-fired power plants produced more than 90% of Kentucky's net generation.”

“Kentucky still remains among the top five states in the nation in coal-fired generating capacity with about 9,400 megawatts at the beginning of 2022,” it adds.

Energy security need not be jeopardized by entertaining flawed clean energy credits and so-called incentives promising unicorn dreams.

The Commonwealth of Kentucky shouldn’t be ostracized for maintaining its coal plants. Therefore, legislators should be entrusted to protect their constituents’ interests here.

https://townhall.com/columnists/gabriellahoffman/2023/03/12/ky-wants-to-prevent-coal-plant-closures-invited-by-net-zero-policies-n2620499

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

Loony ‘environmental’ mandates will kill NYC’s middle-class housing

Among the disastrous effects of the folly called Local Law 97, which requires most apartment buildings to change their heating systems to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, is that electric heat – the city’s preference – doesn’t work as well as boilers that burn fossil fuels.

Bob Friedrich, board president of Glen Oaks Village in northeastern Queens, the city’s largest garden-apartment complex, warns that heat pumps for electrical systems “are only efficient for temperatures in the 30s and 40s. Below that they become less efficient to heat a home.”

In other words, he said, “Get out the heavy coat and gloves.”

The law to take effect at the end of the year can only drive more middle- and working-class homeowners owners out of town. Friedrich calls it “insane.”

Residents of Glen Oaks Village and the Bay Terrace Cooperative, both in Queens, face staggering future costs for “environmental” overhauls.

The loony law spells financial ruin for many of the city’s 3,700 co-op and condo buildings, which are home to 800,000 apartments. It requires buildings with more than 25,000 square feet to either switch to electric heat or replace their boilers so as to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

Warren Schreiber, board president of Bay Terrace for twenty-five years, said, “I’ve never had an issue that actually kept me awake at night.”

Unlike at rental apartment towers owned by real estate companies with substantial revenue bases, the costs of heating conversions in co-ops and condos will be borne by individual shareholders and owners either as assessments or whopping hikes in monthly maintenance costs.

But do it, the city demands — or face gargantuan fines. The Real Estate Board of New York estimates that affected buildings would face more than $200 million in penalties if they can’t comply with the changes, rising to $900 million by 2030 when emission rules would be even tougher.

Climate change might well be occurring albeit much more slowly than New York Times panic-pushers want us to believe. But that we must freeze our patooties off to stave off a strictly theoretical climatic holocaust belongs to the Sci-Fi Channel.

Building managements, including at the Upper East Side high-rise where I live, are all grappling with the law’s ramifications.

But the most pain will be felt by residents of modestly-priced buildings that do not have large reserve funds or other resources to pay for the “woke” diktats.

At the 200-unit Bay Terrace complex in Bayside, Queens, Schreiber said, “We don’t know how we’re going to pay for this.” He can’t even figure out what steps would put the complex in compliance because the rules are too dense to follow.

To go all-electric would cost Bay Terrace $3 million for heat pumps alone, he said, in addition to myriad other expenses needed for conversion.

Shareholders would pay huge assessments or a 30 percent hike in monthly maintenance. Schreiber noted, “We don’t have million-dollar luxury units like in Manhattan. We are a middle-income and working-class co-op. We have lots of teachers, civil servants, single-parent households and senior citizens.

“Many seniors would have to downsize” to smaller units to afford to stay.

At sprawling Glen Oaks, home to over 10,000 residents in 134 buildings. “We have 96 boilers” that would all have to be replaced, Friedrich said. “We’d have to spend $24.5 million for new boilers we don’t need.

“Even if we put in the most efficient boilers,” he said, the fines would be a little less but “would not go away” entirely because emission-reduction thresholds are impossible to meet without switching to an electric system.

But “switching to electric would cost $35 million and saddle our working-class homeowners with the highest electrical rates in the country,” Friedrich said. He called it “the largest unfunded mandate the city ever imposed on their constituents.”

If Glen Oaks made no changes at all, “We’re facing $1.1 million in fines every year,” Friedrich said.

The law was passed by the City Council and signed by former mayor Bill de Blasio with hoopla on April 22, 2019 — Earth Day. Happily for de Blasio, the two buildings he owns in Brooklyn are too small to require the changes.

While the middle class gets screwed, lower-income housing such as the city’s own slum empire of NYCHA unsurprisingly get big breaks on deadlines and implementation.

A coalition of co-op and condo leaders is suing to block the new law and some Council members introduced a bill to delay it. But get ready to bundle up.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/12/nycs-local-law-97-is-a-threat-to-affordable-housing/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

French Nuclear Revival Hits Trouble as New Reactor Defects Found

France’s troubled nuclear industry is supposed to be in revival, but the discovery of further defects at some reactors this week is stoking fears that the year ahead could be just as difficult as the last.

Electricite de France SA’s fleet of 56 atomic power plants has long been the backbone of Europe’s energy system, but in 2022 it was more of a millstone. As reactors were shut down to fix cracked pipes, the company’s nuclear power generation slumped to the lowest since 1988, making the region more dependent on fossil fuels just as Russia squeezed natural gas exports.

The continent is still grappling with the long-term consequences for energy security of the invasion of Ukraine. Everyone from power traders to political leaders had been hoping that France would finally be able to switch from hindrance to help this year, but that’s looking less likely as the country’s nuclear watchdog asks EDF to revise its maintenance program in light of the new flaws.

“If EDF is not able to have a strong comeback in 2023 with a large uptick in generation compared to the very low levels in 2022, the fear is that 2022 can end up being the new normal for the French nuclear generation,” said Fabian Ronningen, a senior analyst for power and renewables research at Norwegian consultant Rystad Energy AS.

As traders digested the week’s news, French power for delivery in 2024 jumped almost a third to about €220 ($235) per megawatt hour, the highest since January.

Following the discovery of so-called stress corrosion cracking at a reactor in late 2021, EDF opened a wide-ranging investigation. The probe found that the company’s 16 newest units were prone to the phenomenon mostly because of the design of the pipes aimed at cooling the reactor in case of an accident. Cracks may also have been caused by welding and other defects.

The utility’s nuclear output sank by 23% in 2022 as it halted about a dozen of its 56 reactors to replace cracked pipes. France went from being a major electricity exporter to its neighbors into a net importer for the first time since 1980.

EDF’s nuclear output hit a low point in August and gradually began to recover. Crucially, a surge of plant restarts in December helped France avoid the blackouts it had been fearing and preparing for during a severe cold snap.

Power generation peaked briefly near 46 gigawatts in early February, but has declined by almost 30% since as more plants were taken offline for safety checks and maintenance, plus the impact of workers’ strikes, according to data from grid operator RTE. Repairs continue at several units and more pipe replacements are planned later this year at a handful of plants. The rest of the fleet is due to be progressively checked up until 2025.

More Problems

These maintenance shutdowns have been uncovering more problems. On Tuesday, France’s nuclear safety authority asked EDF to revise its program of reactor checks following the utility’s discovery of a “significant” corrosion crack at its Penly-1 plant. The defect is located near a weld that had been mended twice during construction of the facility, which was commissioned in the early 1990s.

The watchdog also said EDF would have to extend areas where it looks for signs of so-called thermal fatigue — a different type of defect — after such flaws were found on pipes at the Penly-2 and Cattenom-3 reactors.

So far, the company and nuclear watchdog haven’t been able to give a clear answer on how the discovery of these flaws will affect the recovery in nuclear output.

https://www.inkl.com/newsletters/morning-edition/news/french-nuclear-revival-hits-trouble-as-new-reactor-defects-found?utm_campaign=2023-03-12&utm_content=body&utm_medium=morning-edition&utm_source=inkl

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

British Met Office accused of implausible worst-case climate prediction

A new study by the UK Met Office claims that accelerating global warming will make extreme rainfall events in the UK four times more frequent by 2080 compared to the 1980s.

This story has been widely covered in the news media.

The Met Office claims are derived from computer modelling based on the so-called RCP8.5 emissions scenario, the most extreme pathway for global greenhouse gas emissions, which the Met Office misleadingly describes as “plausible”.

In reality, most credible scientists regard RCP8.5 as implausible given that global emissions data and technological advances essentially rule it out. As a result, the Biden Administration has abandoned using this discredited worst-case scenario.

Moreover, the Met Office offers no empirical data in evidence that an increased trend in extreme rainfall events has actually been observed in line with their modelling. In fact some studies suggest the opposite may have occurred in recent decades.

Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, called on the Met Office to withdraw its fatally flawed study:

“The Met Office should withdraw this grossly misleading and baseless study which is undermining its scientific credibility and integrity and makes it look incompetent.”

https://mailchi.mp/434ed0dd5faf/met-office-accused-of-implausible-worst-case-climate-prediction-194519?e=cc88839e92

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

Kamala Harris Brings Environmentalist Hysteria to New Low, Claims Climate is Causing This Illness Among Young People

I can almost picture the drug commercials now.

Envision it with me: A worried millennial walks through a smog-filled park, his/her/their/xir face fixed in a rictus of existential dread. Then comes the voice-over: “Do you have climate mental health issues?”

“Symptoms could include watching MSNBC for hours on end, worrying if your corgi is contributing to rising sea levels, and physically attacking your grandmother during Thanksgiving dinner for neither serving Tofurky nor giving a land acknowledgement to the Native Americans she stole her suburban flag lot from.

“Perhaps it’s time you ask your doctor if Kamala is right for you.”

It sounds like a good drug name, doesn’t it? It also sounds like an inherently ludicrous woman one heartbeat away from the presidency who claims our children are facing “climate mental health” issues and don’t even know whether they can start a family or not.

According to Fox News, Vice President Harris was speaking at the “Aspen Ideas: Climate Conference” in Miami Beach, Florida on Wednesday, where she told the audience that young climate activists are at risk of mental illness thanks to climate change. That’s a new low from an elected official if I’ve ever heard one.

“One of the young leaders was talking to me about climate mental health. I said, ‘Tell me what’s going on with your peers,’” Harris said.

She then repeated what the activist told her: “Climate mental health.”

“I said, ‘I think I can understand that, but unpack it for me.’ And she talked about how her peers are thinking about it,” Harris continued.

“One example is, you know, whether, when they’re ready, could they start a family — worried about what that would mean and the stress of it.”

“They were talking about in terms of their peers trying to figure out, you know, they’re going to have to get a job and they’re gonna have to make a living — but what they can do and how can they adapt the education that they are having now to their activism?” she continued.

Wait — you mean you can’t just stay a college activist for the rest of your life? Yes, Virginia, that’s usually the case. Sometimes you luck out (See: Sanders, Bernie), but most of us have to find something that creates value, and shouting down Exxon-Mobil representatives at a campus job fair or protesting a Ben Shapiro speech hosted by the College Republicans doesn’t quite fit the bill.

Or maybe I have it all wrong. After all, some Twitter users didn’t even get what the heck this was all about:

Others cast doubt upon the story, no doubt aware that Vice President Harris has frequently been more liberal with interpreting reality than even her boss, on occasion:

However, there are two reactions I think best encapsulate just how dumb this was. The first came from Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki, an earth science professor and climate-alarmism skeptic:

“Climate mental health” issues, such as they may exist, aren’t caused by the climate. They’re caused by politicians and unelected bureaucrats who feed on fear like ticks feed on blood — and the more fear they gorge their rhetoric with, the bigger they get. Now, the perpetuation of the species — the most basic biological drive of every living being, no matter how simple — is being met with what our vice president describes as a form of clinical anxiety.

And then there’s the second important takeaway here: This is, yes, our vice president. The heir apparent to Democratic leadership. A woman who very well may become the most powerful leader in the world should President Joe Biden finally give out.

“Fundamentally unserious” is right. But this is the content that sells for Democrats — at least when they’re among other Democrats. You’re not going to see her give this speech among coal miners in West Virginia, I don’t think.

But, whatever. If you’re young, gullible, tightly wound and easily triggered by climate alarmism, ask your doctor if Kamala is right for you. Side effects may include higher taxes, fewer jobs, rampant inflation, out-of-control crime, violations of constitutional rights and laughter from other world leaders.

If you fail to see positive results after four years, talk to your health care provider about voting to double your dosage. While you may not see any change in the earth or your mental health, studies show you may feel more self-righteous for having “done something.”

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/kamala-harris-brings-environmentalist-hysteria-new-low-claims-climate-causing-illness-among-young-people

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

Dirty Mining, Slavery, and Child Labor Are at the Core of Elites’ Green Energy Obsession

The much-touted green energy economy and the net zero goals it aims to obtain are built upon a dirty little secret: slavery and child labor.

A large percentage of the rare earth elements and critical minerals required for modern electronics, in general, and green energy technologies in particular, are produced and/or refined in countries where, if labor and environmental standards exist at all--and are enforced if they do—the standards are far short of what is required in developed countries.

The mining, refining, manufacturing, and transportation of the huge amounts of rare earth elements and critical minerals is a dirty business. Yet, they are vital to the magnets used in wind turbines, the cables, and stations used to transform the electricity produced by turbines and solar panels, and transmit it to its final destination, and the battery back-up needed to maintain electric power supply and reliability from those intermittent sources.

The International Energy Agency reports that offshore wind requires more scarce minerals, rare earth elements, and other critical metals per kilowatt hour of energy produced than any other source of electric power generation, renewable and non-renewable alike. Onshore wind and solar are the next most critical-mineral-intensive sources.

The vast majority of these critical minerals and elements are mined abroad, and almost all the refining of them is done by China alone.

A single on-shore wind turbine requires up to three metric tons of copper and magnets. Much larger offshore wind turbines require even more copper and magnets composed of rare earth elements. Thousands of pounds of ore must be mined to produce a single pound of rare earths, much less the combination of rare earths required for the magnets used in wind turbines. In addition, between 200,000 and 1.5 million pounds of earth must be mined and moved to produce the lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, and other metals and trace elements necessary to produce a battery pack for a single electric vehicle. Thus, billions of tons will have to be mined and refined to produce the thousands of batteries that will compose the large-scale battery facilities providing backup power when wind and solar facilities are offline.

The conditions under which many of these minerals are produced are appalling. For example, cobalt is a necessary component of the green energy technologies President Biden is pushing on an expedited timeframe. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the largest producer of the cobalt in the world, by far. A large percentage of the cobalt is produced from small mines, where child labor is the norm, not the exception.

What’s more, China is the largest single provider of most of the critical minerals and rare earths used around the globe, and is almost the only refiner of such products. This means minerals and rare earth elements mined elsewhere, often with Chinese funding, are shipped to China for processing into usable materials. Much of the mining and refining of materials in China is produced by forced or slave labor, often of persecuted religious minorities, like Falun Gong followers and Uighurs.

To be clear, those pushing Net Zero goals, like Democrats in Congress, green energy elites profiting from government support in the form of mandates and subsidies, and the Biden administration, know child- and slave-labor are used to produce the minerals their green technologies depend upon. They claim to care about human rights, but their actions belie their words.

The U.S. State Department has a memorandum of understanding with the DRC to reduce the practice of child labor, however, that agreement doesn’t carry the force of law. The United States wants the cobalt and other minerals produced in the DRC, and nearby regions where child labor is also a problem, in large quantities. Indeed, the Biden administration is leaning more on Africa to counter China’s control over U.S. energy. As such, there is little doubt that growing government demand for wind turbines, solar panels, and battery packs in America and elsewhere in the West will increase pressure on cobalt mines to produce more. This will result in either more children being put to work, or existing child laborers being forced to work longer and harder under extremely dangerous conditions.

Concerning China, the Biden administration acknowledged the problem of slave labor, having signed the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act in 2021. Still, the reality of today’s globalized supply chain, combined with insufficient intelligence on the ground to track forced-labor manufacturing, and less still the raw materials, makes it almost a certainty the massive green energy transition being pushed by the Biden administration will be built with minerals and parts produced using Chinese slave labor.

In economic terms, Western climate hysteria is imposing severe negative externalities on developing countries. Ethically, the West’s climate obsession is immorally condemning present generations of impoverished peoples and nations to continued penury and early death. Make no mistake, this ruse exists to further enrich people in developed countries while they simultaneously avoid the cost and inconvenience of adapting to future climate conditions.

https://townhall.com/columnists/hsterlingburnett/2023/03/10/dirty-mining-slavery-and-child-labor-are-at-the-core-of-elites-green-energy-obsession-n2620444

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Fossil" fuels do a lot more than generate electricity. They are part of most modern products

They CANNOT be phased out



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

More Brands Are ‘Greenwashing’ to Make Consumers Think They’re Being Eco-Friendly

Data suggests that environmental consciousness in the United States is at an all-time high. In other words, more people care about protecting the planet than ever before, with more than half of the US population now thinking it's more important to safeguard the natural world than to grow the economy.

This growing environmental awareness has a significant effect on the decisions people make in their everyday lives, such as grocery shopping. As a result, consumers in the United States are increasingly pressuring retailers and manufacturers to find greener methods of production.

Sadly, there will always be some companies who choose expediency over ethics, even if it means misleading their consumers. Some businesses prefer to greenwash. They virtue-signal about their eco-friendliness, but when you look more closely, you find their statements don't hold up.

In the American marketplace, greenwashing has become a serious problem. Consumers are left under false pretenses and their faith in companies' green credentials plummets as a result. Regrettably, it's on the rise, as more shoppers than ever before pay attention to the long-term viability of the goods and services they buy in an effort to reduce their impact on the planet. More and more businesses are making dubious claims about how environmentally friendly their products are in their marketing.

Questionable statements about green issues abound on the packaging and promotion of consumer goods like food. Accusations of greenwashing can do serious damage to a brand’s reputation. The FTC concluded in 2022 that a number of goods sold by Kohl's and Walmart, which had been marketed as ‘made from bamboo’, did not actually contain any bamboo. A classic case of greenwashing, caught out in this case by a regulator. The retailers were fined a total of $5.5 million. In another case, Hefty's Recycling Bags suffered an embarrassing episode when allegations emerged that their bags are not, in fact, recyclable.

The marketing of products containing different vegetable oils is a hotspot for greenwashing. Manufacturers of all manner of products increasingly use the phrase ‘palm oil free’ to advertise their products as ‘environmentally friendly’. Research shows that a disproportionately large number of people (41%) view palm oil as 'environmentally unfriendly,' compared to those who feel the same way about other vegetable oils (such as soybean, rapeseed, sunflower, and olive). Unfortunately, that negative sentiment (stoked by brands) is not reflected in the reality.

Palm oil is much more land-efficient than those other oils. That means if a brand switches away from it to another oil – say, sunflower oil – they suddenly have to chop down a lot more trees to get the same amount of product. So, when a company boasts of having gone ‘palm oil free’, they are almost certainly causing more deforestation than they were before. Yet, they still use the ‘palm oil free’ label as a tool for greenwashing, suggesting to consumers that by sacrificing palm oil, they are somehow helping safeguard the natural world.

Some firms take this kind of greenwashing to extremes. Iceland, a UK grocery chain, collaborated with Greenpeace to create a TV ad depicting a cartoon orangutan whose jungle habitat is devastated thanks to deforestation in order to promote their palm oil boycott. Since then, Iceland has reversed its 'palm oil free' stance, and the commercial has been removed from screens for being too political.

Instead of virtue-signaling with orangutan images and hoping consumers don't question their claims, businesses should be transparent about the environmental credentials (or otherwise) of their products. They get nowhere by pandering to eco-sensitivities and jumping on the latest bandwagon without thinking too hard about the real-world consequences, because it is only a matter of time before their claims are called out. Consumers are more perceptive than some brands assume, and they reward manufacturers who go out of their way to make a real difference in their supply chains and genuinely help roll back deforestation (which doesn't always align with what we might first think are the most environmentally friendly methods).

The increased interest in and concern for environmental concerns is being closely monitored by most large companies. As more customers insist that businesses make changes to better safeguard the environment, many have begun to do so. This means that businesses who engage in "greenwashing" in an effort to avoid the responsibility of providing sustainable products and services to their customers are doing themselves harm.

To make a genuine impact and safeguard the longevity of their business models, corporations must be considerably more forthright about the choices they make throughout production and across their supply chains, as well as the effects those choices have. If the present surge in environmental consciousness continues, it will soon be next to impossible for corporations like Walmart to engage in green virtue signaling without being called out.

Rather than waiting until the situation becomes urgent, because customers discover they are being misled and start abandoning the offending brands en masse, they would be better off setting aside the environmental virtue-signaling and investing now in serious reforms to their supply chains if they want to make bold environmental claims. Greenwashing might seem like a great short-term fix to some companies, but is not profitable in the long term.

https://townhall.com/columnists/jasonreed/2023/03/09/more-brands-are-greenwashing-to-make-consumers-think-theyre-being-eco-friendly-n2620383

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

Canada’s CBC Falsely Claims ‘Climate Change’ Threatening Vineyards

CBC, Canada’s public broadcaster, published a confusing article that claims Canadian vineyards are suffering due to ‘climate change’, and that genetic engineering is going to be needed in order to help certain grape varietals survive in Canada

While it may be true that certain popular types of grapes struggle in the cold and damp of Ontario, where many Canadian vineyards are, the past hundred years have had no measurable effect on Canadian grape production.

The article, “With climate change threatening Canadian vineyards, is genetically engineered wine on the horizon?” admits right away that many people believe that global warming will aid the Canadian wine industry by making winters milder in the southern parts of the country.

The CBC’s “science communicator,” Darius Mahdavi, who wrote the piece, asserts that Canadian winters “are milder on average, but still experience drops to extreme cold” that “could actually be worse for vineyards.”

Researchers interviewed by Mahdavi say that sudden cold snaps during a winter that started off mild can catch grape vines off guard, and damage them more readily than normal hard winters.

At the same time, Mahdavi admits that Canada’s southernmost wine-producing regions have already benefited from the naturally milder zones around the Great Lakes.

Luckily for grape growers in Canada, there is no data that shows arctic outbreaks are more frequent or common, and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that instances of extreme cold should continue to decline as the Earth modestly warms.

This means there will be fewer crop-endangering cold snaps in general, not more, alongside the milder start to winter.

The article also discusses how Canadian growers like to stick with European varieties that are not normally very cold tolerant and suffer from diseases in Ontario’s environment, despite the fact that other grapes, like those grown in Germany, or regionally developed hybrids, can be hardier and produce more regularly.

Wine made from a hybrid grape cannot be honestly labeled as a Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, or other specific grape varietals.

In this case, it seems Canadian wine producers’ main problem is not ‘climate change’, but rather some vintners’ insistence on attempting to produce wine from varietals of grapes not well suited to cold regions, where sudden freezes and heavy snow are common.

The article goes on to describe how gene editing could allow scientists to remove genes from European grape varieties that make them prone to disease, without needing to hybridize.

If Canadian vintners stubbornly cling to the desire to produce certain types of wine not normally grown in colder climes, rather than growing grape varietals and producing wines more suited to the climate, it might make sense to use gene editing to make something like a Chardonnay grape more capable of surviving normally unfriendly regions of the world.

But this has nothing to do with ‘climate change’. As Climate Realism has discussed previously here, here, and here, for example, grape production varies regionally from year to year.

Some years will have unfavorable weather conditions for grapes in one part of the world, whereas others will see bumper crops.

Canada is neither a major producer of grapes nor wine, especially compared to the large wine-producing countries and regions around the world.

Despite this, data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that amid the normal year-to-year ups and downs of crop production during the recent period of modest warming, since the 1990s both grape and wine production have increased in Canada: grape production has grown by more than 86 percent, and wine production increased by more than 97 percent.

There is no evidence ‘climate change’ has or will hamper Canadian wine production. Indeed, slightly warmer weather should make the region more suitable for growing the types of warm weather varietals some Canadian vintners seem insistent on producing.

The CBC could have produced an interesting story about the difficulties of producing homegrown wine in Canada and how genetic engineering may be used to make grapes heartier and more resistant to cold and diseases.

Instead, the public broadcaster attempted to link one more non-existent threat to ‘climate change’.

As is true with so many stories hyping the “climate crisis,” there is no actual evidence to back up the CBC’s claims that weather is making Canadian wine production harder.

As such, CBC did a disservice to Canadian growers and the wine-consuming public. The good news is the future of wine production in Canada appears to be safe and even growing.

https://principia-scientific.com/canadas-cbc-falsely-claims-climate-change-threatening-vineyards/

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

Greens off on another planet: Today’s Australian Greens make their predecessors look sensible

Judith Sloan

It was the formidable Labor finance minister, Peter Walsh, who first described the Greens as akin to fairies at the bottom on the garden. He held their idealistic and unrealistic ideas in complete contempt. In his view, the Greens’ way was a highway to penury, particularly for those on the lowest incomes.

He was also suspicious of their environmental methods, claiming, for instance, that the failure to maintain national parks by clearing, weeding and regular burn-offs would simply lead to devastating bushfires and an extraordinary loss of environmental benefits.

Fast-forward through the intervening decades and it would seem that the Greens have moved on from the bottom of the garden and are now flying in an entirely parallel universe where the practicalities of running a government completely elude them. Indeed, from today’s perspective, former Greens leader, Bob Brown, appears almost sensible; OK, at least he was living on Planet Earth when he was in parliament – at least most of the time.

Today’s cohort of Greens parliamentarians has less connection with the environmental movement – saving forests and endangered species, etc, (although they are obsessed with climate change) – and more connection with hard-left political stances. They support big government, high taxation, anti-capitalism and favourable treatment for all minority groups. Sadly, most of them can’t even spell freedom.

The Greens are now led by the unappealing Adam Bandt who comfortably holds the seat of Melbourne, home to woke types, students and some doctors’ wives. There is no prospect of Labor wresting this seat from the Greens and the adjoining ones are always at risk of being lost to some former teacher turned climate activist.

Of course, it’s been great sport watching the antics of Lidia Thorpe, former Greens senator for Victoria. For those in the Greens party room, it must have been like having a rabid dog running around, incapable of being controlled. Even though Bandt assures us he did everything he could to keep her in the party, one suspects that there were a few sighs of relief when she decided to quit and become an independent senator.

Even so, she probably continues to inflict damage on her former party through her opposition to the Voice on the basis it doesn’t go far enough – truth-telling and treaties are the only road for her – and her antics at the recent Pride March in Sydney.

What is the point of lying on the road and stopping the procession of a float? It escapes me, although she was evidently making a point about the brutal and discriminatory behaviour of the police force. Luckily, the attending police officers had no hesitation moving her on.

Thorpe has zero chance of being re-elected to the Senate as an independent, but she will be in office for some time still, creating mayhem and damaging the Greens – maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

But let me get back to the chasm that the Greens deliberately create by advocating much higher government spending while calling for all sorts of perverse measures, up to and including the banning of coal and gas projects. Without these projects, there is no prospect there will be sufficient revenue to fund their over-the-top spending aspirations.

The Greens’ wish list is close to endless: free childcare, free TAFE and university, free dental care, higher dole, higher rental assistance, more public housing, more public transport, more spending on government schools, more foreign aid and on and on it goes.

Unless you believe that government spending is costless and never-ending – OK, for a while the crazy advocates of Modern Monetary Theory held sway until the ugly face of inflation reared its head and the interest payable on government debt began to rise – the Greens cannot escape that perennial political question: how are you going to pay for it?

But here’s the thing: the main reason Australia is not completely in the fiscal dog-house is the surging company tax revenues from mining companies and high commodity prices. Now I know some Speccie readers are a little bit allergic to numbers, but bear with me if I point out a few simple facts.

Take iron ore, which is a mainstay of our budget. For every $US10 increase in the price of iron ore per tonne, there is a lift of $600 million in company tax receipts. The high prices of coal, both thermal and coking, as well as liquefied natural gas, have similarly led to rapid growth in company tax receipts.

At the time of the election last year, the Treasury expected company tax revenue for 2022-23 to come in at a tad over $90 billion. It now expects it to be $127 billion – a jump of nearly one third. Company tax revenue is now at an historic high which, in turn, is mainly because of the surging tax being paid by the mining companies so reviled by the Greens.

Talk about contradictory: it’s not just having your cake and eating it too; it’s about having the whole bakery. This underscores my conclusion that the Greens are now living on a different planet rather than partying at the bottom of the garden. They want to shut down most of the resource sector but think that government spending can be jacked up big-time.

And let’s not forget here that federal Labor already has substantial spending plans. Next financial year, it expects to spend $666 billion and in 2025-26, the figure is $729 billion, an increase of over 9 per cent in real terms. The Greens’ ambitions are in addition to this increase.

Don’t get me onto some of the other proposals from the Greens. The geniuses in the party think that imposing national rental controls is the answer to our housing rental crisis. The fact that the attractiveness of residential real estate for investors has declined is regarded as neither here nor there by them. And this is before the full impact of the higher cost of investment loans.

They also want to achieve net zero by 2035, think that the ambition of B1(Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris Bowen) to reduce emissions by 43 per cent by 2030 is woefully inadequate and want 100-per-cent renewable energy by the end of the decade. In Bernie Sanders’ style, they think that ‘taxing the billionaires and big corporations’ will release oceans of revenue and a 6 per cent annual wealth tax is the way to go.

Walshy must be spinning in his grave; he would surely conclude that the dotty Greens of his era were sensible pragmatists compared to today’s loopy lot.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/greens-off-on-another-planet/

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net Zero Watch urges UK government to stand up to the wind lobby’s blackmail

New briefing exposes the lobby’s deceptive tactics and the true cost of wind farms

Net Zero Watch has urged the Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to resist the renewables industry’s demands for additional subsidies and has denounced its blackmailing tactics.

Its new briefing for MPs and ministers exposes a systematic campaign to deceive the public over the real cost of wind farms.

Author Andrew Montford explains that wind lobby claims of a dramatic fall in costs, repeated incessantly since 2017, were deliberate falsehoods.

"If it were true, costs could double and they’d still make extraordinary profits at current market prices. The truth is that they deceived the public when they said there had been a cost revolution."

And claims that wind farms have suffered input price inflation since bids were submitted a year ago are also untrue. Most key commodities used in the production and deployment of wind turbines have reduced in prices, and the bids are inflation-indexed in any case.

Net Zero Watch director, Dr Benny Peiser said:

"Wind farms are awash with billions of subsidies every year, making energy bills more expensive year on year. To blackmail the government and demand even more handouts, at a time when households are struggling to make ends meet, is reprehensible and should be categorically opposed by ministers."

Contact Andrew Montford, Deputy Director, Net Zero Watch
e: awmontford@gmail.com

https://mailchi.mp/1b306249be20/net-zero-watch-urges-uk-government-to-stand-up-to-the-wind-lobbys-blackmail-194487?e=cc88839e92

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

Changing climate change: debunking the global colossus

Mark Imisides

In a previous article, I discussed how climate science has grown from an obscure theory in the late 80s to a worldwide colossus that will soon overtake the oil and gas industry in terms of its size.

How is it that despite the scientific case for a climate apocalypse comprehensively collapsing some 20 years ago, we have seen a 16-year-old girl (at the time) being invited to address the United Nations, weeping children marching in our streets, and a federal election outcome in which this issue dominated the political landscape?

Where did we go wrong? And by ‘we’ I’m referring to those of us termed sceptics – people who understand the science, and the house of cards that comprises the notion of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Mainly, we have fallen into the trap of thinking that just because the evidence is on our side, people will come around to our way of thinking. Or to put it another way, we naively assume that everyone is as interested in evidence as we are.

They are not. The Climate Change industry is a massive global entity with unimaginably large financial and political interests. There is too much at stake for those involved to sully themselves with things like evidence…

The time is ripe for a major political party to take up the cudgels and go to the next election on the ‘cost of living’ platform by tossing every initiative or program with ‘eco’, ‘green’, and particularly ‘renewable’ in the bin. Peter Dutton, I’m looking at you.

How do we do it?

Put simply, we must learn the art of the polemic. The art of rhetoric. We must recognise that there’s no point in having evidence on our side if we don’t know how to use it.

We begin with this proposition. There is no case for reducing our carbon footprint unless all four of these statements are true:

The world is warming.

We are causing it.

It’s a bad thing.

We can do something about it.

No rational person can have any problem with this, and if they do, we need to find out why.

Here’s where we have to decide which of these points we want to contest. Remember, you only have to falsify one of them for the whole thing to collapse like a house of cards.

Most sceptics, in my view, pick the wrong fight. They do this by attempting to prosecute the case based on one of the first two points. This is a mistake.

Here’s why.

Arguments about whether the world is warming revolve around competing graphs: ‘My graph shows it’s warming. If your graph shows it isn’t, then it’s wrong – no it isn’t – yes it is – no it isn’t…’

This argument also looks at Urban Heat Island Effects, and examines manipulation of data by government agencies.

This is a poor approach to take because:

You’re never going to prove your graph is right.

You can be very easily and quickly discredited as a conspiracy theorist (Brian Cox did this to Malcolm Roberts on Q&A a few years ago).

People just do not believe that government agencies would manipulate data.

We should not fear a warming world. Records began at the end of the last ice age, so it’s only natural that the world is warming. And the current temperatures are well within historical averages.

As for arguments about whether we are causing the warming, this is even more problematic. The various contributions to global temperatures are extremely complex, involving a deep understanding of atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. With a PhD in Chemistry, this is much closer to my area of expertise than Joe Public, but I am very quickly out of my depth. I recognise most of the terms and concepts involved, but know just enough to know how little I know.

Sadly, many people on both sides of the debate don’t understand how little they know, nor how complex the subject of atmospheric physics is, and it is nothing short of comical seeing two people debating about a subject of which both of them are blissfully ignorant.

This approach is taken simply because it is so tempting. We can point to the Vladivostok ice cores that prove that CO2 follows temperature changes. We can ask why the cooling period from 1940-75 coincided with the greatest increase in CO2 production the world has ever seen. It’s very tempting. But, I’m sorry to say, it is simply a futile approach.

The bottom line is this – they simply don’t change anyone’s minds – ever. Having seen these arguments used for years, and having used them myself, I cannot point to a single person that has said, ‘Oh yes! I see it now…’ The whole point of arguing, or debating, is to change someone’s mind (including, at times, your own). If that isn’t happening, then it’s futile to continue with the same approach.

I think the reason both these approaches fail that most people do not believe that all these experts, and the government, can be wrong. You say the world isn’t warming? Oh, I’m sure you have the wrong graph. You say that CO2 is not responsible? Oh, I’m sure the government scientists know more than you do.

This then brings us to the third point. Why is a warmer world a bad thing?

This is even more tempting than the first two points, as it’s so easy to prove that a warming world, so far from being a crisis, is actually a good thing. The reason for this is that, unlike with the first two points, they don’t have to look at a complex scientific argument. They just have to look at the weather. Are cyclones and hurricanes increasing? Are droughts increasing? Are flooding events increasing?

Regretfully, it is impossible to get people to even look at this. Even worse, they seem oblivious to the simple concept of cause and effect. We see this in that they simply can’t see that droughts and floods are opposites, and the same cause cannot produce exactly opposite effects. Astonishingly, they somehow think that charts that plot these extreme events are somehow manipulated, even when they come from a primary source such as the BOM, and that there really is a ‘climate crisis’.

Where does that leave us? Well, before we adopt Catweazle’s mantra of ‘nothing works’, there is one more point – point 4 (can we do anything about it?).

Most people will have seen the address of Konstantin Kisin at an Oxford Union debate, where he prosecuted this case to great effect. He pointed out, in simple terms, that as the UK only contributes 2 per cent to the global CO2 budget, anything they did will have negligible effect, and that global CO2 levels will be determined by people in Africa and Asia. He then pointed out that people in these countries ‘didn’t give a sh*t’ about climate change, as all they want to do is feed and clothe their children, and they don’t care how much CO2 that produces.

Finally, he pointed out that Xi Jinping knows that the way to ensure that he isn’t rolled in a revolution, as happened to so many other leaders in former communist regimes, is to ensure prosperity for the Chinese people. And indispensable to that goal is cheap, reliable, power, which is the reason that China is now building lots more coal-fired power plants – in 2021 alone they built 25 GW of capacity – equivalent to 25 x 1000MW plants.

By all accounts, his speech was well-received, with many people turning to his side. The beauty of prosecuting this case, as opposed to the other three, is that people don’t have to look at any evidence. They don’t even have to look at the weather.

The argument is at the same time simple, compelling, and irresistible. The question is this: will we see a major political party with the courage to take it on?

That part remains to be seen. But what is certain is this – the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes. If, for twenty years we’ve been telling people either that the world isn’t warming, or if it is we aren’t causing it, or if it is warmer but there’s no climate crisis, and not a single person has been persuaded by our arguments, then we have the brains of a tomato if we think anything is going to change.

Konstantin Kisin’s talk, and in particular the way it was received, fill me with hope that I haven’t had in years. It fills me with hope that if the case is prosecuted wisely, the climate change colossus can be brought to a grinding halt, politicians will unashamedly take on energy security as a political mantra, and the notion of climate change will at last be exposed as the unscientific, anti-human, regressive, apocalyptic cult that it is.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/03/changing-climate-change-debunking-the-global-colossus

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

Biden’s Energy Lunacy Is An Attack On The American People

Under President Trump’s “Make America Great Again” policies and after 62 years of hard work, the United States achieved energy independence and produced more energy than it consumed.

Under the Trump administration, the United States produced more oil and natural gas than any other country, including Russia and Saudi Arabia – the U.S. even exported oil to Saudi Arabia under the previous administration. President Trump is absolutely right when he says that the oil price would have been less than $40 per barrel under his leadership, and Russia would not have invaded Ukraine, displacing millions of people.

President Biden has methodically reversed the Trump administration’s policies in less than three years. He killed the Keystone XL Pipeline, suspended new drilling leases on federal land/water, rejoined the Paris Climate Accord, depleted our strategic reserves, doubled energy prices, and emboldened Russia to attack Ukraine. But most alarming, the Biden administration’s feckless and “Chamberlainesque” foreign policy has forged new economic and trade alliances detrimental to American national interests - specifically China, Russia, and Iran.

During the previous administration, President Trump saw energy as an avenue to build closer political, security, and trade ties with India, the world’s third-largest oil importer. The United States saw a trade deficit fall by 9% with its premier Indo-Pacific ally. Due to India’s Natural Gas demand, the United States became a primary source for liquified natural gas (LNG) exports – including a $2.5 billion deal with U.S. company Petronet, among other agreements where Trump expanded trade and general relations with India.

Fast forward to a Biden administration that has made BLUNDER AFTER BLUNDER. Biden’s debacle in Afghanistan emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine, leaving India alone after making a significant investment in Afghanistan. The unnecessary war between Russia and Ukraine created a difficult situation for India, whose military depended on continued supply of spare parts from Russia. India’s friendly economic relations with the U.S. have now taken a backseat.

Under Biden, India’s imports from Russia have risen nearly 500% since the war in Ukraine began. Additionally, India has refused to condemn the Russian invasion and/or ally with the United States, but most importantly, it has increased its purchases, becoming a key strategic buyer of Russian oil.

Knowing President Trump, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and chief architect of India’s foreign policy Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar the way I do, I can confidently tell you this would have never happened with President Trump at the helm of affairs.

However, this is but one example of how Biden’s policies have elevated American adversaries and threatened American prosperity for years to come, creating global energy shortages that his policies created. This is a self-inflicted wound that a clueless administration is now trying to remedy – manipulating the system by using our national Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to combat rising gas prices.

Our SPR was established in 1975 with national security in mind. According to the Department of Energy, our reserves constitute the nation's "first line of defense." The Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s continued aggression highlight the importance of American energy independence. With depleted reserves, the United States is left exposed.

If there is a national emergency such as war (which every day seems even more likely), we have SPR, and we can continue its flow from the refineries to our frontlines – rather than allowing it to serve as a mask for Biden’s foolish policies. Rising gas prices are a direct result of this administration’s irresponsible agenda. The Biden administration’s decisions will have long-lasting effects on our energy producers, the jobs the industry supports, and all American families that depend on traditional power sources.

Unfortunately, President Biden has shredded our Constitution – taking countless actions hostile to the United States and our energy interests. Americans are paying the price of the current administration’s incompetent leadership. We are quickly approaching a cataclysmic point of no return as a nation. If we are to truly “Make America Great Again,” immediate change is needed. President Trump rolled out his initiative to save America this week on the campaign. He described this plan as an action to cleanse out the globalists in the Deep State, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the national security industrial complex. This plan is the key to America’s survival moving forward.

https://townhall.com/columnists/shalabhkumar/2023/03/07/bidens-energy-lunacy-is-an-attack-on-the-american-people-n2620281

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

UK: Madness on stilts: Hydrogen boilers might need ‘four-inch holes in walls to prevent explosions’

Households that have hydrogen boilers installed could be forced to drill a 4x4-inch hole in their wall to mitigate risks of explosion, according to recommendations in a government-backed safety report.

Residents in a neighbourhood being considered for a trial of hydrogen for home heating have been alarmed by a report’s recommendation that rooms with boilers hobs or substantial pipework “should have non-closable vents with [an] equivalent area of 10,000 mm2”.

The report, by Arup, the design consultants, said these should be located as close to the ceiling level as possible and no more than 50cm below ceiling level.

The same report, which came out in 2019, said that hydrogen for home heating could cause four times as many explosions and injuries than gas boilers without sufficient mitigations, including ventilation.

The report, which is based on a two-storey, masonry-built, terraced house with a basement and a loft conversion, will be used to inform the trials of hydrogen for home heating expected to go ahead from 2025.

Whitby, in the Cheshire town of Ellesmere Port, is one of two neighbourhoods being considered for conversion to hydrogen, with the final decision expected to be made by the Government this year.

In discussions with residents, representatives from Arup and gas network Cadent, which is bidding to run the trial, have said most homes will not require the maximum ventilation given the draughtiness of much of the UK’s housing stock.

Kate Grannell, a resident of Whitby who has led opposition to the plans for the hydrogen trial, said the assurances had not allayed concerns.

She said: “All we’ve done for decades is insulate and draught-proof our houses. So to say homes are leaky enough to void the requirements for ventilation, I think is a really big question.”

Richard Lowes, an energy expert at the Regulatory Assistance Project, said that it ran counter to efforts to reduce draughts and insulate homes to reduce emissions.

He said: “We’re trying to make building more energy efficient and putting in a 10-centimetre hole is doing the opposite of that. So it’s totally backwards.

“To counteract the heat loss, you’d have to have more heat so it is making hydrogen more inefficient. We already know that hydrogen will be more expensive, so it’s making that even more expensive.”

The proposed trials, which will inform the Government’s final decision on whether hydrogen is a viable fuel to help decarbonise home heating, have already been thrown into doubt by the strength of local opposition.

This week, the Government conceded that the trials would not go ahead without the support of residents, although it has not said exactly how this will be measured.

A Cadent spokesperson said: “Every decision we make as an organisation is to ensure the welfare and safety of the 11m customers we serve every single day.

"We have been working closely with Arup as they have developed their research on the safety of hydrogen in homes.

"Their Hy4Heat study undertaken for the UK Government concluded that where the safety measures described in the report are implemented, ensuring ventilation in a home meets the minimum requirements of current building regulations, hydrogen is as safe as natural gas.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/03/hydrogen-boilers-might-need-four-inch-holes-walls-prevent-explosions/?mc_cid=2fa1249dee&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate change will quadruple extreme rainfall events, study suggests

"Suggests" is the right word. This is just modelling and a model simply gives you back the assumptions you have put into it. It proves nothing. This is just a publicity grab

Extreme downpours could become four times more frequent by 2080 if greenhouse gas emissions remain high, a new study suggests.

Climate scientists at the Met Office have found that for every degree of regional warming, the intensity of extreme downpours could also increase by 5-15%.

By the 2070s, deluges of more than 20mm of rain per hour could occur four times as frequently as they did in the 1980s. London typically receives about 40-50mm of rain in a month.

In July 2021, 40mm fell on the capital in just three hours, flooding 31 Tube stations and 2,000 properties.

The Met Office researchers said forecasting long-term trends for extreme rain will help planners and policymakers adapt to the changing risk.

Three million properties across England are currently at risk from surface water flooding, with urban areas in steep catchments, such as Hebden Bridge in West Yorkshire, particularly vulnerable.

Using a high resolution model normally used for weather forecasting, Met Office climate scientist Professor Lizzie Kendon and colleagues examined how local weather patterns could change over a 100-year timespan – between 1980 and 2080.

They ran the model 12 times at a resolution of 2.2km which gave them a more accurate picture of how the frequency of heavy downpours is likely to change over the coming decades.

Previously, less accurate, lower resolution models had found a smaller increase of two to three times as many extreme rain events by the 2070s.

Prof Kendon said: “Being able to look at our projected future climate in such detail has unlocked an incredible amount of information and has shown how expected increases in intense rainfall events will actually manifest at local scale and for the coming years.

“Having this level of detail is crucial to ensure that we’re prepared for the possible extremes of the future.”

Our study highlights the complexity of how natural climate variability and human-induced climate change will come together in the extreme rainfall events we experience over the UK

Higher temperatures create more extreme rainfall because warmer air holds more moisture – 7% for each degree – leading to a greater amount of water falling when clouds finally burst.

Much of the UK’s wet weather comes from clouds which form over the Atlantic and are carried east on the jet stream, which is why the west and north of the UK are generally wetter than the south and east.

The researchers found such regional differences in their climate modelling. North-west Scotland for example could see almost 10 times as many extreme downpours in 2080 as in 1980, whereas the south of the UK could see around three times as many.

The modelling also showed that extreme downpours are likely to fall in clusters because of natural climate variability adjusting conditions favourable for their occurrence.

Prof Kendon warned against trying to predict long-term trends through observation, adding: “The observed rainfall record in the UK is fairly erratic with a large amount of variability, these latest projections show that this is likely to continue through the century.

“What we can see from the higher resolution output is an even more erratic frequency of extreme events each year, so this could mean we see clusters of record-breaking intense rainfall events, followed by a period when no records are broken.

“Despite the underlying trend, these pauses in the intensification of local rainfall extremes can last a surprisingly long time – even multiple decades.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/met-office-london-england-hebden-bridge-west-yorkshire-b2295855.html

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

Climate Scientists Told To ‘Cover Up’ No Temperature Rise Since 1998

Scientists working on the most authoritative study on ‘climate change’ were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed

A leaked copy of a United Nations report, compiled by hundreds of scientists, shows politicians in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the United States raised concerns about the final draft.

Published next week, it is expected to address the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record and world temperatures have not yet exceeded it, which scientists have so far struggled to explain.

The report is the result of six years’ work by UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is seen (by some-Ed) as the world authority on the extent of ‘climate change’ and what is causing it – on which governments including Britain’s base their green policies.

But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.

Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.

Hungary worried the report would ‘provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change’.

Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.

The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean – which has got hotter.

The last IPCC ‘assessment report’ was published in 2007 and has been the subject of huge controversy after it had to correct the embarrassing claim that the Himalayas would melt by 2035.

It was then engulfed in the ‘Climategate’ scandal surrounding leaked emails showing scientists involved in it trying to manipulate their data to make it look more convincing.

The latest report, which runs to 2,000 pages, will be shown to representatives from all 195 governments next week at a meeting in Stockholm, who can discuss alterations they want to make.

But since it was issued to governments in June, they have raised hundreds of objections about the 20-page summary for policymakers, which sums up the findings of the scientists.

What it says will inform renewable energy policies and how much consumers and businesses will pay for them.

The report is expected to say the rate of warming between 1998 and 2012 was about half of the average rate since 1951 – and put this down to natural variations such as the El Nino and La Nina ocean cycles and the cooling effects of volcanoes.

A German climate scientist – Stefan Rahmstorf, who reviewed the chapter on sea levels – yesterday admitted it was possible the report’s authors were feeling under pressure to address the slowdown in warming due to the ‘public debate’ around the issue.

The draft report, which is not new research but a synthesis of all the work being done by scientists around the world, is likely to be highly disputed at the three-day meeting.

It will make the case that humans are causing global warming with carbon emissions even more strongly upgrading it from ‘very likely’ in 2007 to ‘extremely likely’ it is manmade.

But scientists are under pressure to explain why the warming has not exceeded 1998 levels although the decade 2000-2010 was the hottest on record.

Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington, said yesterday:

‘I think to not address it would be a problem because then you basically have the denialists saying: ‘Look the IPCC is silent on this issue.’

Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the IPCC said yesterday:

‘This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted.’

https://principia-scientific.com/climate-scientists-told-to-cover-up-no-temperature-rise-since-1998/

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

America’s $100 Billion Bust on Climate Change

For at least the last 20 years, politicians in Washington, at the behest of green energy groups, have spent some $100 billion of taxpayer money to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How is that going for us so far?

A recent Associated Press story, based on the latest data on global carbon emissions, provides a pretty accurate report card: “Carbon Dioxide Emissions Reached a Record High in 2022.”

The article tells us: “Communities around the world emitted more carbon dioxide in 2022 than in any other year on records dating to 1900, a result of air travel rebounding from the pandemic and more cities turning to coal as a low-cost source of power.”

The article adds that “Emissions of the climate-warming gas that were caused by energy production grew 0.9 percent to reach 36.8 gigatons in 2022, the International Energy Agency reported Thursday. (The mass of one gigaton is equivalent to about 10,000 fully loaded aircraft carriers, according to NASA.)”

You’ve got to almost shriek out loud when you read that the “report was described as disconcerting by climate scientists.”

“Disconcerting”? That’s putting it lightly. We are the furthest thing from being climate change alarmists, but when you spend $100 billion of taxpayer money and achieve absolutely nothing, President Biden and his green allies should be arrested for criminal fraud.

Where did all the money go? Tens of billions of dollars have lined the pockets of left-wing environmental and social justice groups that have been emitting a lot of hot air but no results. Green energy companies have milked taxpayers of tens of billions more, even as wind and solar only produce about 12 percent of our energy.

Is this the greatest ripoff of U.S. taxpayers in history?

I’ve often said that I doubt all the doomsday predictions of global warming are accurate, but if they are, we are goners. Because nothing the Left is doing on climate change is making even the tiniest bit of difference, as the new report shows. What it is doing is giving politicians and activists a chance to virtue-signal. Does it even matter to them that none of their schemes are working?

The most obvious flaw in the green strategy is that few, if any, of the big polluters are cooperating despite the assurances from Mr. Biden’s climate change ambassador, State Secretary Kerry. For the umpteenth time: The United States is not the problem — China is. Its pollution levels are three times higher than ours. Soon India will surpass America in carbon emissions.

Even the top scientists who study climate change admit that without progress from China, nothing America does to reduce emissions will reverse the global trends. America has reduced our emissions more than any other nation, and the problem continues to get worse. And yet, the rest of the world blames America.

All we are accomplishing in the Biden war on fossil fuels is kneecapping our own domestic energy industry while the rest of the world consumes more fossil fuels than ever before. Instead of the oil and gas produced in Texas or North Dakota, it’s coming from Russia, Iran and OPEC. The energy source that is growing the fastest now is coal.

The only way to combat climate change is not through more command-and-control government action. That never works. The Covid crisis and the incompetent government response should have taught us that lesson. We need more growth and better technology to deal with a changing climate. The leftists want less growth and have even been backing “degrowth.” Since when is making America poorer the solution to any problem?

In the wake of this epic policy failure, the Democrats aren’t backing off. Mr. Biden’s latest budget calls for $500 billion more for climate change over the next decade. Talk about throwing good money after bad. We shouldn’t be too surprised because, as Milton Friedman used to remind us, anytime a government program isn’t working, the politicians’ response is: “We aren’t spending enough money.”

If congressional Republicans are smart (a big if), they will not appropriate one penny more for this epic public policy flop. If we want to save our country’s future for our children, the first step is to stop adding to our $32 trillion national debt.

https://www.nysun.com/article/americas-100-billion-climate-change-flop

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

Time for leftist media to terrify people with articles about snow!

The articles below are in the tradition of articles that we have seen for decades saying we could look forward to snowless winters because of humans and our use of natural resources.

What is missing from every one of these articles is a direct link connecting oil consumption, CO2 content, or any other such thing with temperatures and snow. But the truth has never mattered to the media and other leftists when they have set out to destroy the oil industry.

They cannot explain why we had a cooling period from 1940 to 1975, where essentially the same people who are warning of an existential threat of warming were warning of an existential threat that billions would die from an existential threat of a coming ice age. Here is a hint for sycophant journalists who just repeat what they are told.

Snow has been a no-show for some traditionally wintry cities

A big reason for the lack of snow has been the warmer conditions, Robinson says — conditions driven in part by human-induced climate change. The northeast is among the fastest warming regions in the country.

Another story in Yahoo on Monday, which published the indoctrination piece above, talks about record snowfall in California this year. Can't the journalists read or think? If we have record cold and snow in some parts of the country and record warmth in another part of the country, humans and natural resources aren't causing the warm temperatures and snowless winters. The climate is and has always been cyclical and natural.

Dramatic photos show aftermath of historic snowfall, winter storms blanketing California

This is the snowiest first five months of the snow season in the Sierra Nevada since 1970, almost fifty feet so far.

Graphics show snowfall totals in California: Over 50 feet with more expected this weekend

Five months into this water year, counted Oct. 1 through Sept. 30, more than 44 feet has fallen there at the Central Snow Laboratory, a University of California, Berkeley field research station. That's more than double the median of 21.7 feet by this time of year.

"We have had the snowiest October through February going back to 1970," said Andrew Schwartz, lead scientist and manager at the snow lab.

“We're within 3½ feet from the 2017 water year total of 47.77 feet, which is our third largest snowfall year on record in the last three decades," Schwartz said. The lab record for a water year is 53.58 feet set in 2011.

It is a simple concept: humans and natural resources cannot cause both record snow and no snow. Sadly, journalists don't care. They and other Democrats are the party of fear. They want to scare children and others into capitulation, whether it is about the climate or COVID.

Everything to leftists is about power. They do not care how much damage they do to the poor, the middle class, or the overall economy. They don't care how much inflation they unnecessarily cause. They don't care that their destructive policies help Russia finance their war.

They are pathetic and dangerous!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/03/time_for_leftist_media_to_terrify_people_with_articles_about_snow.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Link Found Between Gas Stoves And Respiratory Illness

A new independent analysis published Thursday morning concluded that natural gas-powered stoves are “not a significant determinant of residential indoor air quality.”

The analysis — conducted by the California-based Catalyst Environmental Solutions and commissioned by the California Restaurant Association and the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) — examined dozens of existing studies and government reports.

It concluded that existing research doesn’t establish a significant connection between respiratory illness and gas stove usage despite recent media reports.

“When it comes to the indoor air quality of cooking, the main driver of health risk is what you are cooking, not the fuel that you use to cook it,” Dan Tormey, president of Catalyst Environmental Solutions and chief author of the report, told Fox News Digital in an interview.

“A secondary finding is that the most effective way to protect your health during indoor cooking is to have proper ventilation.”

Tormey noted that emissions produced by heating fish in oil, for example, may produce a large number of emissions, sometimes enough to trigger a home’s fire alarm.

He said those emissions are more detrimental to respiratory health than whether the food was cooked on a gas stove or electric stove.

“It is the entire act of cooking, not just the natural gas, but other elements,” he continued. “What you’re cooking, the method you use to cook. And, in addition, [existing] studies don’t separate out other factors.”

“For example, if there’s smoking in the home cigarette smoking, that has a far greater effect than cooking on asthma,” Tormey said. “Interestingly, some studies find that if a child is allergic to a pet in the house — a dog, cat, bird — that has a far greater effect on the occurrence of asthma than the act of cooking.”

The analysis also concluded that proper ventilation, such as a fan above a stove, which is required around the country, is more important than the type of stove used.

Cooking food at a higher temperature may also produce more emissions and have a greater impact on health.

And media coverage and reports often highlight conclusions in research regarding the links between gas stoves and respiratory health that aren’t made by the research itself, according to Tormey.

In fact, large amounts of existing research have found that there is no evidence of an association between gas stove usage and asthma.

“This study is really just to address the misnomer that ‘people may want it, maybe it costs less and it’s easier to get, but you’re killing people.’ That’s just not true,” Dan Dunmoyer, CBIA’s president and CEO, told Fox News Digital. “This study really just points to the fact that there really is not a health impact based on the fuel source.”

“We believe we’re a market-driven industry,” he said. “So, 87 percent of our customers when surveyed want to have the option of what type of fuel they have in their home, whether it’s gas or electric or hydrogen or solar or whatever they prefer. For us, it’s a market-driven world we live in and if the consumer wants an option, we think we should give it to them.”

He noted that homes in California, where state leaders have pushed particularly aggressive electrification of the economy as part of their climate agenda, are already the most energy-efficient.

In early January, a member of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) told Bloomberg that “any option is on the table“ regarding a potential gas stove ban and that unsafe products can be banned, noting gas stoves were a “hidden hazard.”

He added that the idea that cooking had to be done on gas stoves was a “carefully manicured myth.”

In the report, Bloomberg highlighted research published in December showing gas stoves were tied to childhood asthma cases.

However, the Rocky Mountain Institute, a pro-electrification group that funded the study, later walked back the findings and the White House denied that it was interested in banning gas stoves.

The Department of Energy, though, has moved ahead with strict restrictions on future stove purchases and the CPSC has asked for public comments on the safety of gas stoves.

https://principia-scientific.com/no-link-found-between-gas-stoves-and-respiratory-illness/

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

With the ‘expert’ COVID view blown up, green terror must be next

Carbon fuels and the technologies that depend up them are essential to modern society: Pretending that governments can simply mandate them away, ordering replacements into existence, is out-and-out magical thinking — and policy based on unicorns and magic crystals can only bring disaster and suffering.

Yes, the hysterics also point to disasters and suffering. But that involves even more disconnects from reality (long documented by brave skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg and others). Here just a few:

At the 2021 Glasgow UN climate summit, John Kerry said we had only nine years left to stop global warming. That followed Prince (now King) Charles’ 2019 claim that we had only 18 months. Which conflicted with AOC’s claim that same year that we had only 12 years left. Which cut against the 2004 claim from British greens that climate change would destroy all human civilization by 2020. That timeline undermined the 1989 UN prediction that we had only three years left to win the climate fight — a major fail, after the same body said in 1972 that only a decade remained before time ran out.

Consider, too, the climate refugees, i.e., people supposedly sure to be driven from their homes by climate change. The Institute for Economics and Peace predicts as many as 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050; but the big brains have as bad a record here as they do on the date of doomsday. The United Nations not so long ago foresaw 50 million such refugees by 2010, a massive migration flow that utterly failed to materialize.

On individual extreme weather events, the record of “experts” is just as miserable. Despite endless predictions of raging wildfires and city-drowning floods, the overall death toll from such events is down drastically, from about 500,000 worldwide in the 1920s to about 18,000 from 2012 to 2022.
Don’t forget the helpless critters greens love to hype up. Remember the vanishing polar bear, a keystone of Al Gore’s moral-panic masterpiece “An Inconvenient Truth”? Turns out their numbers are up from 2.5 to five times since the ’60s. The allegedly dying coral of the Great Barrier Reef now holds more coral than at any time since record-keeping began.

Green fanatics, the numbers show, are just as much in the dark about the climate situation as Anthony Fauci et al were about COVID. Their “solutions” — ban gas stoves! mandate Teslas! eat mealworms! — are equally nonsensical, catering to the imaginations and emotions of rich progressives rather than aiming rationally to mitigate the (very real) risks climate change actually presents.

It’s time we stopped listening to them, for good.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/04/with-the-expert-covid-view-blown-up-green-terror-must-be-next/

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

Honda repeats pledge: Petrol engines to continue beyond 2040

The boss of Honda believes traditional petrol and diesel engines will continue to 2040 and beyond.

Honda had previously said it would switch to electric and hydrogen power across its range by 2040, but in an interview with news outlet Reuters, CEO Toshihiro Mibe suggested that timeframe could be extended.

Mr Mibe said Honda was conducting feasibility studies to determine the future of petrol and diesel engines – also referred to as internal-combustion engines – as well as into the increasing dominance of battery technology.

"I’ve been in the engine development business for more than 30 years, so personally [the transition to electric is] a little threatening," he told Reuters.

"But I have to separate my own feelings from what is best for the business."

While many car companies have outlined a move to electric vehicles by 2030 or 2035, Honda is one of the few to express a more conservative viewpoint, suggesting there will still be a place for typical engines by 2040.

Some industry experts are worried developing nations may not have the electrical infrastructure in place to switch away from petrol and diesel, particularly in rural areas.

Despite having a longer time horizon for a complete switch to electric cars than its competitors, in April 2022 Honda revealed plans to launch 30 new battery-powered vehicles by 2030 – including two sports cars and what is believed to be an electric ute.

Honda expects hybrid and electric vehicles will account for 40 per cent of its sales by the end of this decade.

Multiple reports in the second half of 2022 all but confirmed one of those sports cars would be a successor to the NSX.

As part of its transition to electric vehicles, Honda announced it is partnering with General Motors to use its Ultium electric-car battery architecture for future models – as well as announcing a separate partnership with technology company Sony to launch a new electric-car brand called Afeela.

Mr Mibe reiterated that Honda is also working on its own electric-car architecture,

https://www.drive.com.au/news/honda-sees-petrol-engines-beyond-2040

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

Australian Labor Party makes dramatic coal policy backflip that's sure to infuriate the party's green left

NSW Labor leader Chris Minns has risked a serious rift within his party by flagging the possibility of buying back Australia's largest coal-fired power station in a bid to shore up the state's energy supply and bring down electricity bills.

The Australian Energy Market Operator last week warned the east coast could face rolling blackouts with renewable energy generation and gas unlikely to keep up with demand in the next few years.

Despite the impending threat of the lights going out, coupled with spiralling retail energy costs, there has been great reluctance from governments to pour money into the fossil fuel industry - fearing backlash from environmentally-conscious voters.

But Mr Minns appears to be positioning Labor for a major backflip in energy policy ahead of the March 25 election.

The Opposition leader said a government he leads may look to take control of the Eraring power station in Lake Macquarie, which is scheduled to close in 2025, seven years earlier than previously planned.

'I'm not going to let the power run out in NSW, and I'm not going to rule out (buying Eraring),' he told told 2GB's Ben Fordham. 'It might be a negotiation between the government and a private company and I acknowledge that before the election, I'm putting that out there.'

Mr Minns said Eraring provides 25 per cent of NSW's electricity needs. 'If it's taken offline, and there's not the firming power in place, we could have major shortages,' he said.

When its owner Origin Energy made the announcement last year that it would close in 2025, NSW Energy Minister Matt Kean said he was disappointed by the decision.

He promised the state would build what he described as the 'biggest battery in the southern hemisphere' to make up for the power production that would be lost. But, having sold the plant in 2013, the Coalition then tried to buy it back in 2021 for almost five times the selling price.

'This power station was sold for $50million, Matt Kean tried to buy it back for $240million,' Mr Minns said. 'When you sell off critical infrastructure that the state needs, it undermines industry, the economy and the budget position in the long run.'

The Labor leader's comments came after Mr Kean said the Coalition, if reelected, could intervene to keep Eraring open past 2025 to ease shortfalls and rising prices.

But as Labor flipped to a more pro-coal view of power supply, the Liberals flipped the other way and Mr Kean walked away from what he had said hours earlier.

Premier Dominic Perrottet, whose Liberal Party is facing strong challenges from pro-environment Teal candidates in several seats, said intervening to extend Eraring's lifespan was 'not part of our plans'.

'We have an energy roadmap that's delivering $32billion of private sector investment to ensure we have a long term reliable and clean energy future. That's our plan,' he said.

The Premier added that he and Mr Kean were 'on completely the same page' about the power station's future.

Mr Minns told Fordham that the Australian Energy Market Operator - the national regulator - 'released a report last week indicating that we do need to worry about shortfalls in supply in the energy markets over the next 24 months'.

He said one of the reasons Labor plans to set up a NSW Energy Security Corporation is because 'we're worried about exactly these things'.

'When the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing we need to make sure we’ve got dispatchable power for the people of NSW,' Mr Minns said.

'At the moment that's not going to happen because Matt Kean has not done the work to make sure there's energy security within the network. 'I can't rule out further action in relation to Eraring.

The Coalition sold off all five NSW coal-fired power plants since it won power in 2011, while the previous Labor NSW government sold off energy suppliers, but Mr Minns has ruled out any further privatisation if Labor wins power.

In February, he said 'Privatisation does not work. It has been a disaster for NSW and under Labor it stops.'

If Labor bought Eraring back, it would be the opposite of privatisation, it would mean the state taking back control of a previously privatised asset.

If the buyback was about almost anything other than a coal-fired power station it would get the backing of Labor's left and the Greens.

But it does concern fossil fuels - and Mr Minns will have calculated that however many votes the switch loses to the Greens and minor parties the decision will come back in spades in the seats Labor needs to win in Western Sydney.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11825145/NSW-election-Labors-Chris-Minns-backflips-energy-policy-plans-buy-Eraring-power-station.html

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

My other blogs. Main ones below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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