Great Barrier Reef undergoing mass bleaching event

Hoagy is back! Professor Hoegh-Guldberg is once again being an alarmist. He went silent for a few years when his own research showed the reef to be very resilient against damage. But he seems to like attention

Less excitable people below, however, give a more positive and much less alarming picture

The Great Barrier Reef has been hit by its fifth mass coral bleaching event in the past eight years. That event has led experts to ask whether Australia's environmental icon has reached a tipping point.

One of the world's leading coral authorities, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the University of Queensland, is worried it has.

"I know that's shocking … but that's the type of system we're working with at the moment," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg told 730.

The chief scientist for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Roger Beeden, believes such a call is premature.

"Right now, what we've got is a system is that is actually bouncing back from particular events," he said

But he does concede the repeated mass bleachings are taking a toll. "There is no doubt that these events are a clear alarm signal that we all need to be acting on climate change," he said.

The GBRMPA declared a mass bleaching event was underway in Australia last week but how it effects the reef remains to be seen.

"We won't know how significant that is until it plays out, and that's going to play out probably over the next six to eight weeks," Dr Beeden said.

The worst affected areas appear to be in the southern region of the reef.

And when 7.30 showed Professor Hoegh-Guldberg video and images taken recently by the media company, the Undertow, he was alarmed. "I think it's devastating," he said.

"This is an advanced bleaching event and I think a lot of coral is going to die.

"Not only are the branching corals bleaching, which are the sensitive ones, but the bommies, really large long-lived corals are also bleaching severely.

"And these bommies have been around for 200 years, so the fact that they're dying under these conditions should set off the alarm."

Not all bleached coral dies – some of the severely bleached coral from a 2016 event in the north of the reef has survived.

"For those areas that were affected by coral bleaching you can see some recovery in some places. Other places there's no recovery and you can see that full spectrum of things," Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said.

He says that while it's vital to ensure reefs remain resilient through programs such as improving water quality, repeated bleaching events make recovery harder each time.

"What we do know is that if you increase the events that damage coral and you don't give them enough time to recover, you end up losing coral," he said.

"We've seen bleaching come and go, and what we're seeing here in this 12 to 18 months is that we will see the tipping point exceeded and the system crash."

"As to what that means exactly in terms of species and how that will play out, the ebbs and flows, we don't fully know," Dr Beeden said.

"It's certainly clear from the global science that we're putting pressure on reefs."

But the GBRMPA chief scientist also says the Great Barrier Reef has shown remarkable resilience.

"Given enough time, and a lack of other pressures, coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef are still able to bounce back from these kind of events."

A 2022 survey by the Australian Institute for Maritime Science showed coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef was at its highest level since it began records 37 years earlier.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/great-barrier-reef-mass-bleaching-coral-devastated/103588726

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

"Four Pillars of Civilization" Under Attack

Recently, Tucker Carlson did a video about the elite “anti-human death-cult” that’s using “climate change” to reverse the industrial revolution. Returning us to an age where abject poverty — even famine — was a daily reality, while freedom was a distant memory.

During the 15 minute interview, Michael Shellenberger said something that bears comment, that “The pillars of civilization are cheap energy, meritocracy, Law and Order, and free speech. And all four of those pillars are currently under attack.”

This strikes me as a solid list of some of the most important load-bearing walls of civilization that are currently under coordinated attack by the left. And if these pillars go the world we know will be gone.

So how exactly are these pillars holding us up?

The list breaks into two hunks: pillars that maintain prosperity — cheap energy, meritocracy. And pillars that are more fundamental, holding up both prosperity and freedom.

Of course, the two are related; historically, prosperous people demand and mobilize for freedom. Starving people do not.

Cheap Energy

Starting with the prosperity, cheap energy literally transformed mankind. The burning of coal in the 18th century enabled the industrial revolution. Which transformed the world from millennia of survival-level stagnation to a world where every generation has a hard time imagining what life was like for their parents, let alone their grandparents.

Indeed, if you teleported a Roman peasant into 16th century Italy, life would be familiar. The legal system, the property rights regime, how people spent their days. School, career, retirement would all be familiar.

In both eras, almost everybody lived on a farm. Some were artisans, a rare few became intellectuals, artists, or philosophers.

There were minor inventions here and there — better plows, new methods of drying fish. But progress was counted in decades — even centuries.

Now teleport that same 16th century Italian peasant to today and it’s almost unimaginable. According to a YouGov poll, the most popular careers in America right now are Youtuber, musician, artist, actress, and professional gamer.

Meritocracy

Meritocracy is an even more fundamental requirement than cheap energy. Because if we aren’t choosing by quality then institutions fail, and our modern prosperity is built on complex organizations. There are companies alone that employ millions, to say nothing of interconnected institutions like legal communities or the academia-science nexus.

These complex organizations enable complex machines. For example, a single Boeing 747 contains 6 million individual parts which all must function in perfect harmony. Those 6 million parts are produced by tens of millions of people in hundreds of thousands of companies all over the world.

All of this, too, must function in perfect harmony for the individual parts to work.

Now multiply that times everything we use — the refrigerated supply chains that keep food from spoiling on the way from the farm, the electricity or water systems that keep cholera out of the water supply. All of this must work perfectly, millions of parts and tens of millions of people.

Law and Order

Aside from the injustice of innocent men condemned and criminals running free to victimize the innocent, from an economic perspective losing law and order crushes prosperity even more thoroughly than losing meritocracy.

This is for two reasons: the obvious risk of government tyranny, and how a perverted or non-functional legal system crushes incentives to build and create.

After all, if a man doesn’t know what behavior will be punished, or whether his property and even freedom is secure, he won’t invest in the future. Why spend decades building if it can be snatched away. If losing meritocracy guts institutions, losing law and order prevents them existing at all.

We know this today because history is full of failed or corrupted legal systems. Indeed, there are failed countries even today, such as parts of Somalia or Congo. All live on the edge of starvation. Men live for today, grab what they can, devil take the hindmost.

Free Speech

Finally, the most important: Free Speech.

Economically, free speech serves two essential functions: diagnosis and repair. Together, it’s a form of insurance against policies that would collapse the rest of it.

After all, if we can’t communicate, we either can’t see problems coming, or we might blame the wrong thing. We might see there’s not enough food, but we don’t know why. The government might tell us its global warming, or greedy business, or the ever-popular saboteurs.

We become the frog in the boiling pot who’s fast asleep.

Worse, without free speech we have no way to organize and fix it. Historically, elites are small and their victims are many, but elites typically hold an organizational advantage — standing armies, back-room cabals. Without free speech the many cannot organize against a predatory few.

We become the frog who’s paralyzed.

What’s Coming Next

In the grand scheme of history, we’ve only just begun to unravel our civilization. I’d date the start to the Progressive era a century ago, when totalitarian socialism gained the upper hand by making a devil’s bargain with liberal democracy: give us control and we will let you sit on the throne.

Over that century, the totalitarians have advanced in fits and starts, each time pushed back as free speech rallied the victims. So it was after World War I, after the Depression, and in the 1960’s reaction against government authority. Each time the totalitarians broke it, and the masses rejected them.

I think we’re entering another major offensive from the totalitarians, which I’d date to 2016 when Brexit and Donald Trump convinced the totalitarians they’re losing. They reacted as they always do, by over-reaching for control. And, like past offenses, they are going for the pillars. The load-bearing walls holding up civilization.

These next couple years will be critical: Will they consolidate their gains and enter a new era of totalitarianism, perhaps as bad as 1300’s absolutism in Europe. Or, once again, will free speech allow us to diagnose and correct the threats in time. This time fortified by the internet — by the very fact you can still read this article.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2024/02/four-pillars-of-civilization-under-attack/

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

U.S. Seeks to Boost Nuclear Power After Decades of InertiaAustralia: Battery Storage Plans Fan Community Bushfire Fears

A northeast Victorian community is fighting plans to build battery storage in an area of extreme bushfire risk, as the state government closes one avenue of appeal.

Mint Renewables and Trina Solar plan to build two battery energy storage systems (BESS) near the Dederang terminal station in the Kiewa Valley.

“It’s just ridiculous,” Dederang’s Sharon McEvoy, who owns farmland next to the proposed sites, told AAP.

“It’s north-facing, and backs right up next to the bush ... surrounded by bushfire management overlays.”

Ms. McEvoy led a community meeting, as more than 200 frustrated residents of Dederang and nearby communities filled the recreation reserve hall and spilled out onto the deck and foyer.

“We know the fire risk,” she told the crowd on March 14.

Battery fires can burn for several days and release toxic and flammable gasses, as seen in 2021’s four-day fire at the Tesla Big Battery site near Geelong, west of Melbourne.

“We care about the environment, the waterways, and the land where we live and work,” said Ms. McEvoy, while fighting back tears.

“The government is sacrificing the wellbeing of rural communities.”

The meeting came hours after the Victorian government announced plans to fast track new renewables projects, including stripping the ability of third parties to appeal planning decisions in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

“Once the reforms come into effect, new permit applications for batteries can be considered under this new accelerated pathway,” a spokeswoman for the department transport and planning told AAP.

“Our accelerated pathway for renewables projects will help deliver cheaper and cleaner energy to Victorian households sooner.”

The department has not yet received permit applications for either of the Dederang battery storage projects, and applications made from April 1 can be considered for fast tracking.

The state government maintained community voices would continue to be protected, despite the curtailing of VCAT access.

“Third party objections will still have a place in the approvals process, but this change prevents time-consuming and repeated delays that hold these projects back for years,” the Victorian government said on March 14.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said the issue went far beyond a state planning issue.

“What is happening to your community is happening right across the country,” Senator McKenzie told the crowd.

“We’re all on the journey to net zero, but we need to share the burden.”

Both Chinese-owned Trina Solar and Mint, owned by Infratil and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation, opted not to attend the meeting.

“We are updating our design and developing mitigation measures to ensure the project is well-informed by local knowledge,” Mint said in a statement.

“We will continue to be open and responsive to questions and constructive feedback.”

Ovens Valley state MP Tim McCurdy said residents should direct their concerns to Victoria’s minister for planning, Sonya Kilkenny.

“We’re not anti-renewables, we just want communication,” Mr. McCurdy told the crowd.

“We want to know what’s going on.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/battery-storage-plans-fan-community-bushfire-fears-5607927

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

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

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

Little-known international NGO finalizing building code forcing US homes to be green

An international organization that develops model codes and standards for new construction is quietly preparing an energy conservation code that opponents argue is a backdoor climate initiative and will lead to higher home prices.

The International Code Council (ICC) — a Washington, D.C.-based group that regularly issues more than a dozen codes regulating new construction and impacting billions of people worldwide — is expected to finalize its 2024 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) early next week. While previous IECCs received little opposition, the 2024 version has been widely criticized for prioritizing climate initiatives over energy efficiency.

"They're incentivizing electrification and discriminating against the natural gas industry by excluding it from being part of the code," Karen Harbert, the president and CEO of the American Gas Association (AGA), told Fox News Digital in an interview. "That really is anticompetitive behavior."

"If you are about energy efficiency, you should say, ‘We are about energy efficiency however you get there’ — being fuel neutral. But in this case, they are prescribing the way to get there, and it only includes electrification."

AGA, whose members provide natural gas service to 180 million customers nationwide, has argued in recent months that the ICC developed its 2024 energy efficiency code with "serious lapses in due process" by not involving them. It further said the code would harm consumers and lead to higher costs.

The leading gas industry group, other energy industry associations, housing groups and the ICC's own Northeast regional branch filed appeals in late December and early January asking for a revision to the 2024 IECC. However, the ICC's appeals board recommended this month that those appeals be rejected, leaving the group's board of directors with the final decision. That's expected to come Monday.

Among the provisions opposed, the draft IECC, which has been in development for years, requires new one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses to install electrical infrastructure for home electric vehicle chargers. It also mandates that new homes are equipped with the electrical wiring needed for a solar panel system and all-electric appliances.

According to the AGA, those measures and other provisions were largely included in the IECC as part of an omnibus package in September 2022 after rejection through the normal process.

"The activists that are supporting an all-electrification agenda tried to come in through the policy front door, which was to ban natural gas in cities, and that got overturned in the Ninth Circuit," Harbert told Fox News Digital. "They tried to ban gas at the state level, and that's now being challenged. And they have tried to do it through regulation and have been unsuccessful."

"So, you go to a process that is very much under the radar, very wonky, very technical, but with the same objectives," she continued, referencing the IECC process. "You come in the front door, you come in the side door, now you're coming in the back door."

In addition to AGA, the American Public Gas Association, the appliance manufacturer trade group Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) also filed appeals to the 2024 IECC.

"As long-standing supporters of the ICC codes and standards, we are concerned that this version of the IECC misses the mark," Paula Cino, NMHC's vice president for construction, development, land use and counsel, told Fox News Digital in a written statement.

"Without action from the ICC Board to cabin provisions that exceed the bounds of the code, this IECC would threaten housing affordability and weigh renters down with costs for unwanted or unusable technologies," she added.

In its December appeal filed jointly with BOMA, NMHC particularly criticized the IECC's electric vehicle charging provision and another provision requiring new homes to have so-called demand responsive controls for water heating equipment, allowing a third party to reduce a home's energy consumption in times of high demand. NMHC and BOMA argued that the 2024 IECC would place additional costs on Americans, including low-income families.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/little-known-international-ngo-finalizing-building-code-forcing-us-homes-to-be-green

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

Some PA Democrats Are Pushing Back Against Eco-Fundamentalism

In a sign of how far left the Democratic Party has veered, once-avowed progressives are now hesitant to embrace eco-fundamentalism—the dogmatic ideology that vilifies affordable energy, oversells “green” initiatives and advances ruinous policies.

Consider Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.). They’re both loyal, party-line Pennsylvania Democrats. But they’re also politicians who know which way the wind is blowing with the American people. So they broke ranks with President Biden on his liquid natural gas (LNG) export ban.

“If this decision puts Pennsylvania energy jobs at risk, we will push the Biden Administration to reverse this decision,” they said.

Fetterman and Casey were joined by fellow Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) in opposing the ban, but not all liberals are on board. Their party-mates in Washington, D.C. would be wise to follow their example and moderate on energy policy, or they will soon discover that as Pennsylvania goes, so goes the nation.

The warnings appear to be falling on deaf ears among Democratic leaders. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s efforts to keep the state in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), along with Biden’s LNG ban, are among the most recent efforts to impose extremist energy policies.

When he was running for office, Shapiro declared that RGGI was not “real action” and added that it likely wouldn’t address climate change. But as governor, he has become its champion.

Biden and Shapiro are singing from the same eco-fundamentalist hymnal. Their siren song would cripple American energy production and independence. Though an easy pitch to blue states, these purported carbon-reduction schemes are harder to sell in energy-producing purple states such as Pennsylvania, as Shapiro knows perfectly well.

RGGI, like the LNG ban, is not popular in the Keystone state. This multi-state compact taxes carbon-emitting companies and doles out the extracted funds from successful energy businesses in corporate welfare to renewable energy businesses and conservation organizations.

A Commonwealth Court recently struck down Pennsylvania’s entry into RGGI, calling the carbon tax illegal. Much to the chagrin of the 71 percent of Pennsylvania voters who oppose the program, Shapiro appealed the decision and prolonged the RGGI’s unwelcomed presence in Pennsylvania, which will now come before the state’s Supreme Court.

Before RGGI, Pennsylvania had already significantly reduced carbon emissions through the introduction of natural gas. In fact, the state’s carbon-reduction efforts had already been exceeding RGGI member states. From 2007 to 2019, RGGI states cut emissions by 37 percent. Comparatively, Pennsylvania cut more, reducing emissions by 40 percent. Since 1970, Pennsylvania’s carbon dioxide emissions have dropped 30 percent, whereas national emissions have increased by 15 percent.

Increased production and extraction of natural gas, which emits half as much carbon dioxide as coal, drastically reduced emissions in Pennsylvania. The most precipitous drop in emissions occurred following the 2005 shale boom.

Pennsylvania did this all without RGGI.

Ultimately, RGGI doesn’t decrease emissions—it merely exports them. Comparing energy consumption of RGGI and non-RGGI-member states in the Eastern Interconnection, a 2021 study found decreased emissions in the RGGI states but increased emissions in non-RGGI states—a phenomenon experts refer to as “leakage.” By reducing consumption and production in member states, RGGI’s leakage incentivizes neighboring states to pick up the slack.

RGGI states rely heavily on importing their electricity. Based on total consumption, three of the top-five net-importing states—Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware—are RGGI states.

Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is an energy juggernaut, home to abundant natural gas reserves, a well-established history of coal production, and a robust nuclear industry. This full-bodied statewide production inspired one pundit to call the Keystone State “the Saudi Arabia of North American energy supply.”

Energy production is the lifeblood of Pennsylvania’s economy. Energy production supports more than 423,000 jobs and contributes more than $75 billion annually to the commonwealth’s economy. Cutting into Pennsylvania’s energy sector threatens the livelihoods of hard-working Pennsylvanians and the communities where energy extraction is the leading employer.

Moreover, increased energy costs translate into increased utility bills, placing an undue burden on consumers already struggling with the higher cost of living. Virginia, also now a purple state, is in the process of leaving RGGI due to increased rates caused by the program’s caps. Needing $370 million in allowances to offset its above-cap emissions, Dominion Energy, headquartered in Richmond, added a surcharge to its monthly billing to make up the difference, passing the cost of RGGI along to Virginia residents.

As Virginia exits RGGI, Pennsylvania and other states must follow suit. Senators Casey and Fetterman would do well to make their opposition to Biden’s LNG export ban consistent by opposing RGGI. Governor Shapiro should stop trying to have it both ways on RGGI, and should clarify his policy toward Pennsylvania’s energy sector by dropping his appeal of the Commonwealth Court’s decision.

As the second-largest energy-producing state and the eighth-highest net exporter, Pennsylvania is a microcosm of our country’s growing momentum toward energy independence. In 2019, American energy exports exceeded imports for the first time since 1952, providing diplomatic leverage to the U.S. and freeing our reliance on foreign despots and cartels. From Ukraine to the Middle East, the escalating specter of global conflict and intensifying chaos abroad make our need for energy independence more urgent than ever.

From RGGI to LNG bans, destructive “green” initiatives—and their quixotic quest for carbon neutrality—undermine our national momentum toward energy independence. Instead of one-size-fits-all carbon-reduction plans, state legislatures should embrace and strengthen our country’s position as an international leader in energy production.

This should not be a partisan issue—it is an American issue.

https://www.heritage.org/energy/commentary/some-pa-democrats-are-pushing-back-against-eco-fundamentalism

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

Everything Reminds Me Of Tim: Biography Of Tim Ball

Since the inception of the climate scare a lot of us skeptics have been elderly and we are dying out. I am 80 so it may be my time soon. Tim lived to 84

John O'Sullivan

New biography of one of the world’s best skeptical climatologists, Dr Tim Ball, has just been released. Written by Tim’s widow, Marty, it provides unique personal insights into the life and work of a most accomplished critic of the junk science of man-made global warming.

Nobody has done as much – for as long and at such great cost – to expose the lies and misapprehensions over the most enduring and organised crime syndicate in modern history. Tim Ball obtained his PhD in the field of climatology in London in 1983 and had no qualms disavowing himself of nonsense scare stories being peddled by university colleagues over alleged ‘dangerous’ human CO2 emissions.

Over the subsequent 40 years the tenacious but avuncular Dr Ball produced countless scientific articles, lectures, seminars, books and radio and TV interviews in his mission to offer balance to the official doomsday narrative.

In early 2010 it was my honor and pleasure to count Tim as a dear friend and colleague when he joined our nascent international team of climate researchers who collaborated in writing the world’s first and only full-volume debunk of the science behind it all – ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ (2010).

Thanks to Tim’s input Father Time and the scientific method has vindicated our book despite the vitriol and ridicule flung at us. Our research and analyes is proven entirely accurate in revealing that not only is carbon dioxide not our climate’s control knob, but this trace atmospheric gas serves only to COOL, and not warm anything.

Such is the extent to which midwittery, group think and corruption has poisoned the intellectual well of academic thought that even now, countless famed scholars still dare not openly admit they had it wrong and CO2 is innocent.

Dr Ball was a humble, hard-working but inspirational thought leader whose mantra throughout the hard-fought and often bitter climate debate was to remain civil – ‘disagree, but without being disagreeable.’

https://principia-scientific.com/everything-reminds-me-of-tim-biography-of-tim-ball/

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

Australian Alps snow cover to fare worst in the world under climate change, German study finds

And pigs might fly. Prophecies are worthless. The best snow in our general area is in New Zealand, anyway

A grim picture has been painted of the future of the Australian Alps, with research predicting snow cover days may fall by 78 per cent by the end of the century.

Worldwide, 13 per cent of ski areas are predicted to lose all natural snow cover by 2100.

Researchers from the University of Bayreuth in Germany have today published a study in the journal PLOS One, prompting calls from academics to reinforce an urgent need to address climate change.

The study puts Australia's rate of decline as the highest when compared to six other major skiing regions in the world, including New Zealand, Europe and Japan.

"I'm not surprised by the findings of this report, to be honest," Climatologist and Australian National University Professor Janette Lindesay said.

"There's no doubt that we're heading for an even warmer future."

The study found one in eight ski areas across the globe, or 13 per cent of winter ski slopes, were predicted to lose all natural snow cover this century under a high emissions scenario.

High emissions referred to one of three climate change scenarios based on the Shared Socio-economic Pathways model laid out in the study, alongside "low" and "very high".

Study co-author Dr Veronika Mitterwallner said her team focused on the "high emission" projection to summarise their findings because they considered it the most current and realistic scenario of the three.

Despite this, the study found annual snow cover days across all seven "major mountain areas with downhill skiing will significantly decrease worldwide" across all three scenarios.

Professor Lindesay said it reinforced a need to ramp up efforts to tackle climate change and lessen potential damage to alpine environments.

"The scenarios are effectively storylines … taking into account possible future carbon dioxide emissions, socio-economic circumstances, population growth and possible policy responses to global heating," she said.

"The best thing we can do is get emissions down to net zero as fast as we possibly can."

The study predicts snow resorts may need to move or expand into less populated mountain areas at higher elevations to combat the effects of climate change.

But University of Canberra based geomorphologist Phil Campbell said that would not necessarily work in Australia where ski resorts were at a lower altitude compared to other countries.

"One of the problems in Australia is that we're fairly low in our ski resorts, which are already at the very top of our mountains," he said.

"We're not going to have the same ability as many other countries do to be able to relocate our ski resorts.

"The same goes for endangered plant species as well, because there's nowhere for them to retreat to."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/australian-alps-snow-cover-climate-change-german-researchers-/103577562

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

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

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

President Biden’s Climate Aspirations

Most of what the political class calls policies are really aspirations with no policy content. They are feel-good statements that promote goals most people would support, with no associated policies that would move toward those goals. The following is an example.

The White House’s web page for the National Climate Task Force (skip down to the section “President Biden’s Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis”) lists emissions goals for 2030, 2035, and 2050, well after President Biden will have left office, even if he serves out a second term. These are aspirations and aspirations that would have to be met by his successors, letting the president off the accountability hook.

What prompted me to write about this subject was this article titled “Biden’s scaled-back power rule raises doubts over US climate target,” which reports on an actual policy. The Biden administration has decided to exclude natural gas power plants from upcoming emissions standards.

The key point in this example is that the president’s actual policy works against the president’s stated goals.

Further down, the website lists the Biden administration’s accomplishments toward fulfilling his climate aspirations. They include a record number of electric vehicles and charging stations, new solar and wind projects, and supporting domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies.

Those may be good things, but they are things the private sector is doing. “Support” isn’t a policy; it’s an attempt to take political credit for private sector action. If these things count as accomplishments, they are private sector accomplishments, not Biden administration accomplishments.

The website also credits the Biden administration for finalizing the strongest vehicle emissions standards in American history and proposing more robust standards for greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions. Those are not policies; they are aspirations. Should those aspirations be realized, it will be because the private sector has figured out how to reduce its emissions.

As the political season ramps up this year, notice that the “policies” that politicians will propose are not really policies at all; they are aspirations. They say, “Here are some good things I would like to accomplish if I am elected,” but they don’t say how they intend to accomplish them. They amount to feel-good slogans rather than actual public policies.

Most people will be in favor of mitigating climate change, reducing crime, securing the border, and reducing the budget deficit. Those are feel-good aspirations. Fewer people will favor specific policies aimed at realizing those aspirations. That’s why politicians talk about aspirations rather than specific policies. That’s also why those aspirations often fail to be realized.

The aspirations are popular; the policies to accomplish them are less so. That’s why the Biden administration is enacting a policy that works against his own stated goals.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/03/05/president-bidens-climate-aspirations/

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

UK: Net Zero an urgent threat to national security

A new paper from Net Zero Watch makes a comprehensive case that efforts to decarbonise the steel and electricity fundamentals of the economy now represent a real and present danger to national security.

In an important intervention, Sir Gerald Howarth, Minister for International Security Strategy under David Cameron, says in the paper’s foreword:

“Our adversaries are watching us like hawks, so let us leave them in no doubt: we are rearming and rebuilding, and Net Zero is firmly on hold.”

Professor Gwythian Prins, a defence expert and one of the paper’s authors, agrees that with the recent deterioration of the world's security situation, luxury beliefs such as Net Zero must be jettisoned as a matter of urgency:

“This is the moment when the music stops. The Port Talbot closure harshly exposes the costs of luxury ‘green’ beliefs. We cannot be dependent on imports for the full range of necessary steels to rebuild our arsenals – the Navy first and foremost – and, most ridiculously, we cannot depend for them on our global antagonists."

"Furthermore, our armed forces are wholly dependent on oil to keep them in the field, and our electricity grid will collapse without gas. Any attempt to abandon them will leave us entirely at the mercy of hostile powers."

The paper also includes contributions from Gautam Kalghatgi, a professor of combustion and energy engineering, who ridicules plans to decarbonise the armed forces through use of batteries and biofuels, and the historian Guy de la Bédoyère, who sets out the eternal historical lesson that technological laggards usually end up the victims of conquest by their more advanced neighbours.

Mr de la Bédoyère said:

“It is impossible to diminish the effectiveness of a nation’s armed forces without making it a sitting duck for a more ambitious rival’s greed. But that’s exactly what our leaders seem to want to do.”

Andrew Montford, director of Net Zero Watch said:

“The three contributors make it clear that Net Zero is leaving us at the mercy of hostile powers. A Net Zero army and a Net Zero economy could both be brought to their knees in a matter of days. In these dangerous times, our politicians must re-order their priorities.”

https://mailchi.mp/9f70d53a356e/press-release-net-zero-an-urgent-threat-to-national-security-201280?e=cc88839e92

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

Population is not being told the true cost of Net Zero, warns former World Bank economist

Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition.

Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.

The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.

There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.

Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).

Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.

Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.

On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.

Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition.

https://dailysceptic.org/2024/03/06/population-is-not-being-told-the-true-cost-of-net-zero-warns-former-world-bank-economist/

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

Australian conservative opposition Confirms It Will Develop 6 Nuclear Power Sites

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has confirmed the Coalition’s energy policy—expected to be released ahead of the federal budget in May—will probably include six nuclear plant sites.

While he has yet to name the exact locations, Tasmania has been ruled out as a potential host state. It’s considered likely that the reactors would be built on the sites of old coal stations to take advantage of existing transmission infrastructure.

This means the Labor-held seat of Hunter, the independent seat of Calare, and Coalition-held Flynn, Maranoa, O’Connor, and Gippsland may be all on the shortlist for nuclear power stations.

At the Australian Financial Review Business Summit in Sydney on March 12, Mr. Dutton said the Coalition would encourage nearby communities to accept the plants by offering them subsidised energy—a model he said was used in the United States. He told the audience that it would also provide an incentive for the industry to establish jobs.

“Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emission and firms up renewables,” he said.

The opposition’s position comes as modelling on Australia’s net zero transition estimates the country will need to invest hundreds of billions, and even trillions, to fully reduce emissions.

The tremendous cost stems from the widescale investment in wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and pumped hydro (where available), but also into transmission infrastructure, as well as electrification of public transport networks and private vehicles (buying EVs instead of regular cars).

Nuclear Detractors Also Point to Cost

Energy experts say it’s difficult to estimate the cost of transitioning to nuclear, given the technology is not currently commercially available.

But during the speech, Mr. Dutton dismissed what he described as “straw man arguments” against nuclear, including cost.

“Australia’s energy mix is about 21 percent gas, 47 per cent coal, and 32 percent renewables. Ontario province in Canada is about 5 percent gas, 35 percent renewables, and 60 percent nuclear. South Korea is about 30 percent gas, 30 percent coal, and 30 percent nuclear, with the balance mainly hydro … Australians pay almost double what Ontario and South Korean residents pay,” he said.

He said reactors produce a “small amount of waste” and said the government had already signed up to deal with nuclear waste via the AUKUS agreement.

The Australian Radioactive Waste Agency (ARWA) found there were 2,061 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in 2021, compared to 1,771 cubic metres in 2018. It projects 4,377 cubic metres in the next 50 years, compared to 3,734 cubic metres projected in 2018.

Intermediate-level waste is produced in nuclear medicine—for example, imaging, scanning and radiotherapy.

Currently, the waste is stored in more than 100 places, but most of it is held at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) facilities in Lucas Heights, Sydney.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/opposition-confirms-it-would-develop-6-nuclear-power-sites-5605495

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

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

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

America’s Energy Scam! A deliberate exploitation of humanity that only increases emissions!

America is aggressively pursuing “green” electricity and actively phasing out crude oil to reduce emissions generated in America by deliberately increasing worldwide exploitations of humanity, environmental degradation, and increased emissions.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, President Joe Biden, and world leaders are not cognizant enough to know that wind turbines and solar panels only generate occasional electricity and cannot manufacture tires, cable insulation, asphalt, medicines, and the more than 6,000 products now made from the petrochemical derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Without a replacement for the petrochemical derivatives manufactured from crude oil, phasing out oil would also phase out the medical, military, transportation, communications, and electrical power industries, none of which existed before the 1800s.

Climate change may impact millions, but without fossil fuels and the infrastructures and products we have today that did not exist before the 1800s, we may lose billions from diseases, malnutrition, and weather-related deaths.

Eradicating the world of crude oil usage would ground the 20,000 commercial aircraft, and more than 50,000 military aircraft worldwide, leave the 50,000 merchant ships tied up at docks, and discontinue the military and space programs! Without a backup plan to replace crude oil, the 8 billion on this planet will face the greatest threat to humanity without jets, merchant ships, and space programs.

America’s climate policies being introduced are particularly harmful to developing countries. America is probably the most environmentally controlled country in the world, but by deliberately relying on poorer developing countries for our fuels and products, we are “leaking” to other countries:

In the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis in 1977, the Department of Energy was established to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, but today, with its 14,000 employees and a 48 billion dollar budget, the D.O.E. continues to remain dead silent and has allowed California, the fourth-largest economy in the world to increase imported crude oil from 5 percent in 1992 to almost 60 percent today of total consumption.

California is home to 9 International airports, 41 Military airports, and 3 of the largest shipping ports in America. California’s growing dependency on other nations is a serious national security risk for America!

China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are great war historians. As World War I and II historians, Russia, China, and OPEC know, the country that controls the minerals, crude oil, and natural gas controls the world! It’s shocking that of all the Generals who report to President Biden (Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Program), NONE have asked the President how we will run our military ships, planes, vehicles, and supply products to our troops WITHOUT oil?

It’s a no-brainer that an attack on the ports at San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Long Beach could paralyze the American economy, causing huge reductions in fuels for California’s in-state infrastructures and stagnating the supply chain of products for the entire country.

Meanwhile, California continues to constantly reduce its in-state refining capacity, which refines fuels and petrochemicals for society’s materialistic demands and continues to grow its dependency on foreign oil.

A few notes about ELECTRICITY:

Everything that needs electricity, such as the basic light bulb, computers, iPhones and iPads, televisions, washing machines, and X-ray equipment, is made with oil derivatives manufactured from crude oil.

Every method of generating electricity, such as wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric, nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plants, exists only because the parts and components of the generation system are made with crude oil derivatives.

Renewables, like wind turbines and solar panels, only generate occasional electricity from inconsistent breezes and sunshine but manufacture no products for society.

Fossil fuels, on the other hand, manufacture everything for the 8 billion living on this planet, i.e., products and transportation fuels.

Most importantly, today, there is a lost reality that the primary usage of crude oil is NOT for generating electricity but to manufacture derivatives and fuels, which are the ingredients of everything needed by economies and lifestyles to exist and prosper. Energy realism requires that the legislators, policymakers, and media that demonstrate pervasive ignorance about crude oil usage understand the staggering scale of the decarbonization movement.

The ruling class and powerful elite have yet to identify the replacement for the oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products and all the fuels for the merchant ships, aircraft, military, and space programs that support the 8 billion living on this planet.

The American government provides incentives and tax deductions to transition society to EVs, but those incentives are financial incentives for the continuation of Child Labor and Ecological Destruction “Elsewhere.” Is it ethical and moral to provide financial support to developing countries that are mining for exotic minerals and metals to build EV batteries for Americans?

We’ve become a very materialistic society over the last 200 years, and the world has populated from 1 to 8 billion because of all the products and different fuels for planes, ships, trucks, cars, military, and the space program that did not exist before the 1800s. Until a crude oil replacement is identified, the world needs a backup plan that replaces crude oil that will support the manufacturing of the products of our materialistic society.

Today’s materialistic world cannot survive without crude oil! Conversations are needed to discuss the difference between just ELECTRICITY” from renewables and the “PRODUCTS” that are the basis of society’s materialistic world. Wind turbines and solar panels are themselves MADE from oil derivatives and only generate occasional electricity but manufacture NOTHING for society.

How dare the ruling class, powerful elite, and media avoid energy literacy conversations about the “Elephant in the Room.” The end of crude oil, which is manufactured into all the products and transportation fuels that built the world to eight billion people, would be the end of civilization, as “unreliable electricity” from breezes and sunshine cannot manufacture anything.

https://www.americaoutloud.news/americas-energy-scam-a-deliberate-exploitation-of-humanity-that-only-increases-emissions/

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

Net Zero Watch welcomes British Government recognition of need for gas

Net Zero Watch has welcomed the announcement that the Government will support new gas-fired power stations.

The campaign group said that it was the latest sign of a shift towards more pragmatic energy policies. It said the new plants were vital for energy security, but noted that the need for subsidies, announced at the same time, was a reflection of a broken energy system.

Net Zero Watch’s head of policy, Harry Wilkinson, speaking to TalkTV’s Julia Hartley-Brewer said:

‘People can debate this decision if they like, but this was the inevitable result of the fact that the lights will go out if we do not build this firm, reliable capacity…It’s the right decision, but it has come very late. We have to remember that Britain has some of the most expensive electricity prices in the world, particularly for businesses, and that’s done an enormous amount of damage.’

The decision is likely to be opposed by the Labour Party, whose shadow Secretary of State, Ed Miliband, remains committed to full decarbonisation of the grid by 2030. Most analysts view this target as infeasible.

Because the new stations will only be used occasionally, they will have to be heavily subsidised. The need for such support generation is well known, but today’s announcement is an important recognition that gas will remain indispensable.

Dr John Constable, Net Zero Watch’s energy director, said:

‘Net Zero dies, not with a bang, but a whimper. Subsidising new gas power stations to prop up unreliable and uncontrollable wind and solar means that the failing Net Zero target can limp along for another five or ten years at huge consumer cost and vast economic damage. Looking on the bright side, these power stations will eventually be used as part of the desperate return to fossil fuels that is inevitable as reality bites home and wind and solar are abandoned. But with a little courage all of this absurd cost could have been avoided. What a mess.’

https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-news/recognition-need-for-gas

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

Climate doomsday theory goes up in smoke

Decades of scientific speculation have painted super volcanic eruptions as potential extinction-level events. However, new research suggests that even the most monstrous of eruptions wouldn’t quite lead to such frigid scenarios.

Indonesia’s Toba volcano: An explosive past

Around 74,000 years ago, Indonesia’s Toba volcano unleashed a huge eruption that made modern volcanic events look like mere firecrackers. It was 1,000 times stronger than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. The eruption sent a huge plume of ash and gas into the atmosphere, covering much of the globe in a thick layer of debris.

But how it impacted Earth’s climate afterward remains a lingering mystery. While experts agree on some cooling effects, just how severe the aftermath gets much murkier, with estimates ranging from a few degrees drop to a potential ice age.

New simulations by NASA and Columbia University scientists offer a more reassuring picture. Their study shows that even a super-eruption like Toba would likely cause a global temperature decline of only about 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), far from a civilization-ending catastrophe. So why the tempered outcomes?

“The relatively modest temperature changes we found most compatible with the evidence could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,” said lead author Zachary McGraw, a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University. Here’s a video from Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell on a potential supervolcano blow-up.

Role of Sulfur particles

Previous models focused on the immense sulfur dioxide plume released by super-eruptions that condenses into tiny sunlight-blocking particles high in the atmosphere. Here’s the twist: scientists discovered that the size of these aerosol particles dictates just how chilly things get.

The tinier the particles, the greater their sunlight-blocking potential. Unfortunately, gleaning the size of particles from eruptions thousands of years old is extraordinarily difficult, leading to vastly differing estimates.

Luis Millán, an atmospheric scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California, who was not part of the study, suggested that further research be conducted on the cooling mechanisms of super-eruptions. He believes that a comprehensive analysis of models, as well as additional laboratory and model studies on the factors that influence the size of volcanic aerosol particles, are necessary to move forward.

Millán stated that the ongoing uncertainties show that geoengineering via stratospheric aerosol injection is far from being a viable option.

Geoengineering lessons from natural disasters

Super-eruptions are very rare events, occurring once every 100,000 years or so. The last one happened more than 22,000 years ago in New Zealand. The most famous example may be the Yellowstone Crater eruption in Wyoming about 2 million years ago.

This finding could even influence the debate on geoengineering, wherein scientists propose artificially injecting particles into the atmosphere to slightly dim the sun and counter global warming. Understanding the intricate workings of these natural volcanic systems provides crucial insights into the potential (and unintended) consequences of such intentional climate control strategies.

While super-eruptions might not hold the doom-and-gloom capacity some predicted, the power of volcanoes to shape our planet remains uncontested. This research is a reminder of nature’s ever-churning forces and the delicate balance of our climate.

https://interestingengineering.com/science/supervolcanoes-wont-trigger-an-ice-age-new-research-finds

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

The Leftist Australian government is hiding many dark environmental secrets

The Albanese government is embracing some of the worst practices of dictator-driven governments to conceal controversial environmental measures. The secrecy may be necessary because the measures curb mining in Australia, hit many property developments, restrict solar farms and hurt farmers.

I emphasise this commentary is not about the detail of what is planned — I don’t know the detail. My contribution is to reveal the extraordinary third world practices being embraced by Anthony Albanese to conceal what is planned so it can be rushed through the parliament.

I fear the designers have no regard to the revenue implications of what they plan. Their title “The Nature Positive Plan” looks to be in the tradition of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

The secrecy measures are nothing short of extraordinary and are equally dangerous as those used by former PM Scott Morrison to conceal the fact he was taking on extra ministries.

I set out below how the truth behind “The Nature Positive Plan” is being concealed.

Representatives from leading companies and other interested parties are invited to go into a room to look at parts — not all — of the draft legislation.

But before they are allowed to enter the room, they must sign a voluminous confidentiality agreement preventing them from discussing both their entry into the room and the contents of the draft legislation they are about to be shown. I do not know the exact penalties for breaching that agreement, but the fines will be heavy and jail a possibility.

Once the agreement is signed, those allowed to enter the room are told they must not photograph any of the draft legislation on the table and cannot take it away. They are given a fixed time to take notes using blank paper and a pen.

There is some discussion allowed about the draft, but I don’t know the details. The participants are allowed to take their notes away with them. Nothing else.

I don’t know the people who were invited but almost certainly some will be international companies who later (illegally) will report back to international boards, including those in the US (our defence partner), this is a country where very strange practices are taking place.

To overseas eyes used to third world countries, it must reek of corruption, but I don’t think money-based corruption is taking place. It's all about extreme left wing agendas.

As I understand it, there have been several of these bizarre events. Only a government with something very dangerous to conceal would embrace this sort of tactic.

It is publicly known the Albanese government is planning a new tranche of legislation to replace the current Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The EPBC Act was a carefully prepared document. The states and federal governments set the framework and then industry groups, individual companies, environmental groups, scientists, conservationists, subject-matter experts, and the general community were consulted extensively.

The EPBC Act was developed over years before the federal government published a discussion paper, then an exposure draft, to get detailed feedback on the entire suite of changes.

The Albanese government thinks it can replace this substantial, 1,100-page legislation (plus hundreds of further pages of subsidiary legislation) in short time.

Australia as a nation spends its mining, agriculture and property revenue by providing very high levels of social services. Jim Chalmers, in recognition of this revenue source, has taken steps to make mining approvals smoother.

But, I suspect the treasurer does not know exactly what is being planned. You will remember he advocated pensioners use the gig economy to gain the extra income he was allowing them to earn without impacting pension entitlements.

He didn’t know the industrial relations legislation was going to hit the gig economy hard.

It is understandable an ALP government would seek to upgrade the environmental rules set down in the 1990s. But the right way to go about it is to bring the community together with wide consultation — just as was done in the 1990s.

I am told one version of the environmental secrecy technique was used before the industrial relations bill was put on the parliamentary table. The industrial relations blueprint was a total mess and will endanger our economy. And its “loopholes” title was also in the Orwell tradition.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-albanese-government-is-hiding-many-dark-environmental-secrets/news-story/8da7109dd5622482b6cdd70f8a246632

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

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

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

Scientists Expose Major Problems With Climate Change Data

Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

The Biden administration leans on its latest National Climate Assessment report as evidence that global warming is accelerating because of human activities. The document states that human emissions of “greenhouse gases” such as carbon dioxide are dangerously warming the Earth.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) holds the same view, and its leaders are pushing major global policy changes in response.

But scientific experts from around the world in a variety of fields are pushing back. In peer-reviewed studies, they cite a wide range of flaws with the global temperature data used to reach the dire conclusions; they say it’s time to reexamine the whole narrative.

Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

Some experts told The Epoch Times that deliberate fraud appeared to be at work, while others suggested more innocent explanations.

But regardless of why the problems exist, the implications of the findings are hard to overstate.

With no climate crisis, the justification for trillions of dollars in government spending and costly changes in public policy to restrict carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions collapses, the scientists explained in a series of interviews about their research.

“For the last 35 years, the words of the IPCC have been taken to be gospel,” according to astrophysicist and CERES founder Willie Soon. Until recently, he was a researcher working with the Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian.

“And indeed, climate activism has become the new religion of the 21st century—heretics are not welcome and not allowed to ask questions,” Mr. Soon told The Epoch Times.

“But good science demands that scientists are encouraged to question the IPCC’s dogma. The supposed purity of the global temperature record is one of the most sacred dogmas of the IPCC.”

The latest U.S. government National Climate Assessment report states: “Human activities are changing the climate.

“The evidence for warming across multiple aspects of the Earth system is incontrovertible, and the science is unequivocal that increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases are driving many observed trends and changes.”

In particular, according to the report, this is because of human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and agriculture.

Looking at timescales highlights major problems with this narrative, Mr. Soon said.

“When people ask about global warming or climate change, it is essential to ask, ‘Since when?’ The data shows that it has warmed since the 1970s, but that this followed a period of cooling from the 1940s,” he said.

While it is “definitely warmer” now than in the 19th century, Mr. Soon said that temperature proxy data show the 19th century “was exceptionally cold.”

“It was the end of a period that’s known as the Little Ice Age,” he said.

Data taken from rural temperature stations, ocean measurements, weather balloons, satellite measurements, and temperature proxies such as tree rings, glaciers, and lake sediments, “show that the climate has always changed,” Mr. Soon said.
“They show that the current climate outside of cities is not unusual,” he said, adding that heat from urban areas is improperly affecting the data.

“If we exclude the urban temperature data that only represents 3 percent of the planet, then we get a very different picture of the climate.”

Homogenization

One issue that scientists say is corrupting the data stems from an obscure process known as “homogenization.”

According to climate scientists working with governments and the U.N., the algorithms used for homogenization are designed to correct, as much as possible, various biases that might exist in the raw temperature data.

These biases include, among others, the relocation of temperature monitoring stations, changes in technology used to gather the data, or changes in the environment surrounding a thermometer that might impact its readings.

For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.

Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.

But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.

“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.

Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.

Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.

One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.

These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.

More here:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/prominent-scientists-challenge-key-data-underlying-climate-change-agenda-5593800

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

NZ Government Removes Climate Targets from Transport Plan

Climate targets are no longer a priority under the New Zealand government’s latest plan for the transport sector.

In its recently released draft policy statement (pdf) on land transport, the National-led coalition government outlined its investment strategy for the next decade with an estimated total spending of NZ$20 billion (US$12.3 billion).
Under the draft plan, while the government is committed to reducing carbon emissions by facilitating the electrification of New Zealand’s vehicle fleets, it does not consider climate targets a priority.

Instead, the government’s top priority is to support economic growth and productivity through investing in transport projects.

It also wants to raise maintenance levels and enhance the resilience of state highways and local and rural roads, as well as improve the transport network’s safety and value for money.

This marks a significant change compared to the previous Labour government, which identified climate change as a key issue of its transport policy.

The shift in focus also means that relevant government departments and agencies may not be subject to emission reduction requirements when making transport investment decisions.

The government stated that the new plan would help build and maintain a transport system that allowed people to travel quickly and safely.

Among the investments laid out in the report were $2.3 billion for public transport services and $2.1 billion for public transport infrastructure over the next three years.

The government also planned to spend another $3.1 billion to $4.8 billion to fix potholes on state highways and local roads.

“Over the next three years, our investment of around $7 billion per year prioritises economic growth and productivity, increased maintenance and resilience, safety, and value for money,” Transport Minister Simeon Brown said in a statement

“It balances the need for investing in new projects while ensuring our transport system is maintained to a high standard.”

Strong Criticism from Climate Change Advocates

Following the government’s announcement, All Aboard Aotearoa, a coalition of advocacy groups that supports a net zero transport system, lashed out at the draft plan, calling it a “disgrace.”
“This is a transport plan that wouldn’t have been out of place in 1955 in Los Angeles,” Paul Winton, a trustee of All Aboard Aotearoa, told Radio New Zealand.

“Back in the days, when they thought that building roads and suburbs as far as the eyes could see was something that would drive the economy and drive better lives for people. But 60 years later, we know that is not the case.”

Mr. Winton also warned that the government would face legal challenges from activists if it adopted the draft plan.

“The wires are running hot with the various legal activists at the moment looking at how they can curtail this destructive approach to transport planning,” he said.

Meanwhile, Ia Ara Aotearoa Transporting New Zealand, a road freight peak body, welcomed the government’s new policy.

“We’re pleased to see the government following through on their election commitments to re-start the road building pipeline, focus on the dangerous and potholed condition of our streets and highways, and avoid road user charges and fuel excise increases in their first term,” said Interim CEO Dom Kalasih.

“Over the past few years, our members were disappointed to see revenue from vehicle users diverted into unproductive investments in rail, coastal shipping, and walking and cycling, while the condition of the roads continued to decline. It’s great to see Minister Brown committing to turning this around, despite challenging fiscal constraints.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/nz-government-removes-climate-targets-from-transport-plan-5604742

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

Swedish Electric Buses Charged By Diesel Generators

We are constantly being told that we should switch to electric vehicles to reduce climate emissions

In Sweden there is a company called X-trafik that operates busses in the cities of Gävle and Sandviken. They have bought in 52 electric busses from the Chinese company BYD in order to become “environmentally friendly”.

However, this ‘green’ shift has caused massive chaos with freezing busses in the ice cold Swedish winter and hundreds of cancellations.

Of course, all paid for by the Swedish tax payer.

Turns out that the electric busses didn’t have enough range and they couldn’t charge the busses fast enough, which led to up to 100 busses being cancelled every day, leaving people stranded in the cold Swedish winter.

In fact, there simply isn’t enough energy and infrastructure to go around in order to charge all these new electric busses.

The Solution?

They have now brought in massive diesel generators to be able to charge the electric busses – this of course at an extra cost.

Yes, you read that correctly. They cannot charge the new electric busses because there isn’t enough charging capacity to go around.

This reminds me of how they had to use diesel generators to keep wind turbines in Scotland warm during the winter.

It sounds very funny, until you think about the fact that YOU are paying for this madness.

So they had to bring in DIESEL generators in order to charge these new “environmentally friendly” busses.

You literally cannot make this up.

People are being told that it is good for the environment, but in reality they are getting scammed.

https://principia-scientific.com/swedens-electric-buses-charged-by-diesel-generators/

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

Households pay after Highland wind farms earn £68 million for nothing

Static wind turbines in the Highlands cost consumers nearly £68 million in 2023.

They accounted for more than one-quarter of all Scottish wind farms receiving “constraint” payments for zero energy output, new figures show.

According to the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a lion’s share of such payments to UK wind energy suppliers found its way north of the border last year.

Of the £307.2m total for the whole of Britain, the National Grid Electricity System Operator (National Grid ESO) paid a record £275.3m to a total of 86 Scottish generators.

The Highlands led the pay-out league in terms of wind farm numbers, with 22 sites across the region getting payments totalling £67.8m.

Top of the constraint payments league table in the area is SSE Renewables’ 66-turbine Stronelairg wind farm, near Fort Augustus, which received nearly £11.6m.

But the two biggest earners in Scotland were both offshore.

Moray East wind farm, a 100-turbine development in the Cromarty Firth, received nearly £43m for machines delivering no energy.

And the 114-turbine Seagreen scheme off the coast of Angus earned constraint payments totalling nearly £40m.

An onshore wind farm, Clyde, near Abington in South Lanarkshire, comes in third at nearly £16.9m.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/business/6390107/households-pay-after-highland-wind-farms-earn-68-million-for-nothing/?mc_cid=1ef8be501e&mc_eid=cc88839e92

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

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

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

Polar Bears and Coral Reefs Are Doing Just Fine

We live on a beautiful planet, filled with a dizzying assortment of interesting creatures and living organisms. The vast majority of people want to see that life flourish, so it is no wonder that particularly attractive species like cute (usually) polar bears and colorful corals are often used to promote climate alarmism.

Corals and polar bears are two very different kinds of animals in all ways but one: climate alarmists love to claim they are particularly threatened by the modest warming that has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age. Those claims are false.

For coral reefs, changes in ocean pH and temperature can cause bleaching, and sometimes death. Therefore, a change over time in both of those variables due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) supposedly will lead to mass elimination of corals around the world.

It is true that sudden changes in temperature and other water conditions can cause bleaching, which occurs when the symbiotic algae that gives coral structures their color is killed or jettisons itself. However, what is not true is that this phenomenon always or even usually leads to coral death. In reality, decades of research have shown that corals often bounce back from these events, including in cases where scientists had previously labeled the reef as a total loss.

Such was the case with Coral Castles reef, which was bleached by a 1998 El Niño event. When scientists returned to take another look in 2015, they were stunned to find it thriving. This occurred despite the fact that they had predicted the reef would take 100 years to recover. Later, the researchers stated in a press release that “[o]ur projections were completely wrong.”

Coral polyps, the anemone-like animals that actually build the reef structure, can struggle in “too much” heat. But corals typically thrive in warmer waters, not cold, and have survived for the past 60 million years through periods where temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher (and lower) than they are today. The vast majority of corals exist in tropical or subtropical waters, near the equator, and rather than disappearing, have been expanding their range slightly towards the poles amid recent modest warming trends.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR), subject of frequent climate alarmist propaganda, is also doing fine. Recent bleaching events, especially around 2012, in the GBR were hailed as the permanent end of the reef by climate doomsayers. However, the GBR had other plans. In 2022, the GBR saw the highest coral extent on record.

That’s the tropics; now we put on the long underwear and look to the far North, to probably the most famous animal poster child for the supposed threat of climate change: the polar bear.

Polar bears are threatened, we are told, because summer sea ice is melting, and soon the polar bears will not have access to their traditional hunting grounds and prey. This sounds like common sense, but even common sense is sometimes wrong, as with the polar bears.

Far from dying off from a little warming, polar bear numbers have substantially increased since the 1960s, when they were protected from overhunting. Recent estimates put their population somewhere around 32,000 individual bears, three times as many as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted in the 1960s. While some subpopulations have seen declines, new subpopulations are still being discovered. Polar bears have survived during periods of Earth’s history when summer sea ice was basically nonexistent, like during the much warmer Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago.

Photographs of starving, sickly bears circulated in the media are intentionally misleading. They are meant to paint a picture that is very different than reality. Data show that polar bears are carrying more fat into the winter months than they did in decades prior, and they have better rates of cub survival and more stable litter sizes. The overall outlook for polar bear welfare looks highly promising.

In short, real-world data show that both polar bears and coral reefs are doing far better than alarmists would have you believe is the case based on flawed climate models. Stick to the data, and you will find good news for animal and nature lovers everywhere.

https://heartland.org/opinion/polar-bears-and-coral-reefs-are-doing-just-fine/

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

Convincing Proof That NET ZERO Is An Utter Waste Of Resources

Peter J. Morgan writes: 21 February 2024

Let us never forget that the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was deliberately morphed by its promoters to become “Climate Change”. This was a deliberate obfuscation, and now people, who should know better, use the term ‘climate change’ when they mean ‘the changing climate’ brought about by natural forces, not more atmospheric CO2.

Just over three and two years ago respectively, Physicists Prof. Emeritus Dieter Schildknecht and Coe et al. (David Coe, Dr Walter Fabinski and Dr Gerhard Wiegleb) independently calculated from fundamental physics and the HITRAN database of spectroscopic properties of gases, that the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide is only 0.5 Celsius degrees, which is one-sixth of the IPCC’s ‘best estimate’ (read ‘best guess’). (The climate sensitivity of a greenhouse gas is defined as the increase in Earth’s mean temperature caused by every doubling of the atmospheric concentration of that gas.)

Further, Coe et al. calculated that the climate sensitivity of methane is 0.06 Celsius degrees, and that of nitrous oxide is 0.08 Celsius degrees. IMHO, all four physicists deserve to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics, for proving that carbon dioxide is insignificant as a greenhouse gas, and in Coe et al.’s case, that methane and nitrous oxide are, too. In truth, CO2 is essential to all life on Earth, and is not a pollutant, despite the fact that in their ignorance, greenies and the MSM ignorantly and persistently claim that it is. Far from being a major problem necessitating that mankind’s emissions of that gas be drastically curtailed, more of it would be beneficial in feeding an increasing global population, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for irrigation and pesticides.

Water vapour, which is ever-present naturally, and is absolutely out of the control of mankind, is the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas. Earth’s water cycle is in truth the omnipresent grand air conditioner and atmosphere cleanser. The lead author of Coe et al., David Coe, has calculated that it will take about 250 years from now for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to double from today’s 420 ppm to 840 ppm, by which time Earth’s mean temperature will have increased by only 0.5 Celsius degrees above what it would have been had the atmospheric concentration of CO2 remained constant at 420 ppm.

That in no way means that earth’s mean temperature will have increased by 0.5 Celsius degrees over those 250 years – it may actually have decreased due to natural causes overwhelming the tiny warming effect of CO2. Nobody knows enough to make accurate predictions of it. Thus there is no climate crisis and there never will be.

Earth’s climates are forever changing due to natural causes that overwhelm the effect of increasing carbon dioxide. Thus NET ZERO is an utter waste of resources, for ZERO EFFECT.

Before anybody can legitimately claim that Physicists Schildknecht and Coe et al. are wrong, they must follow the long-established norms of physics and provide proper scientific refutations of both the Schildknecht and Coe et al. papers.

Note 1: Neither the Schildknecht paper nor the Coe et al. paper has ever been refuted.

Note 2: The Legal Profession regards what an expert says as being evidence, whereas the Engineering Profession regards that as being merely opinion (otherwise known as testimony). To the Engineering Profession, experts’ opinions are not evidence unless they are based on verifiable physical evidence. Many Court judgements have been flawed because of the failure of the Legal Profession, which includes the Judiciary, to grasp these important facts.

Note 3: Nobody has ever provided any verifiable physical evidence that carbon dioxide – let alone the tiny fraction of it produced by mankind – causes any significant global warming. Not the IPCC. Not the Royal Society. No state meteorological office. No climate scientist. All they have is the output of computer models based on false assumptions.

Note 4: The government of China, knowing all this, is building new coal-fired electricity generating capacity at a rate of more than 1000 MW (Huntly-size) every week. India also knows all this and is striving to outdo China’s build rate. More CO2 reduces plants’ need for water and is beneficial to plant growth. More CO2 is therefore helping to green our planet.

Note 5: Australasia (i.e., New Zealand and Australia) emits just under 1% of all the world’s GHGs. Cutting Australasia’s emissions to zero – if indeed that were possible, which it isn’t – would not make a measurable difference to global mean temperature. Instead.

https://principia-scientific.com/convincing-proof-that-net-zero-is-an-utter-waste-of-resources/

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

Look to Germany to See America’s Future Under the Green Energy Agenda

Germany’s gross domestic product has been falling since the third quarter of 2022, causing fears of the first 2-yearlong recession since the early 2000s. German farmers are openly protesting new climate regulations that would raise the price of diesel fuel, vital for tractors and farm machinery. This discontent is mirrored by the general public, which is opposed to higher energy costs that drag down the economy. Recent polls show a significant shift in public opinion that’s increasingly opposed to the coalition government.

Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives or the Senate, where invariably one party secures a ruling majority, multiple German parties must form a coalition to reach the required 50%+1 majority threshold.

Currently, the Green Party, the Social Democratic Party, and the Free Democratic Party comprise this coalition. The latest polls show all these parties polling far below their 2021 election results while the more right-leaning parties, such as the Christian Democratic Union and the Alternative for Germany, are surging in popularity.

The recent economic slowdown has resulted in widespread political discontent, and the core of the slowdown has been disastrous energy policy.

Instead of the government focusing on making energy affordable, it has continued its commitment to the “Energiewende”—the “Energy Transition”—a government project aimed at radically shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. One of the project’s stated goals is to increase the use of renewable energy sources to 80% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.

Germany’s closure of its nuclear plants in April 2023 has made achieving net-zero targets significantly more challenging, given that nuclear power is capable of generating substantial amounts of carbon emissions-free electricity. The economic effect of these decisions is palpable for ordinary people, who feel it each month when paying their energy bills.

According to the most recent data published by the German Federal Statistical Office, consumers have been paying an average of 46 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity. For comparison, the average price of electricity in the United States during December was just under 13 cents per kWh.

Cost disparities can also be seen in the price of gasoline. At the fuel pump, German consumers pay an average price of $7.23 per gallon, compared to $3.33 in America.

These high energy costs are slowing other aspects of the economy, leading to dramatic losses in purchasing power for consumers and threatening to make production unprofitable for many companies. In addition, small businesses and farmers, which rely on electricity and fertilizers to operate, respectively, have been hit extremely hard by these recent price increases.

In addition, the slowdown in global trade is profoundly affecting Germany’s export-centric economy, exacerbating the overall economic decline. Unfortunately for Germans, recent economic forecasts do not offer much hope either. Economists predict the economy to grow only by around 0.2% in 2024.

Large German companies have already taken notice and acted accordingly. Around 67% of German companies have moved at least some operations abroad, citing high energy prices and inflation as their main reasons for leaving. This wide-scale deindustrialization is especially prevalent for the mechanical engineering, industrial goods, and automotive sectors—the backbone of the German economy.

The tipping point came in February, when the famous family-owned dishwasher manufacturer Miele announced that it would cut thousands of jobs and move production to Poland. Luxury car manufacturer Porsche initially planned on building a new car battery manufacturing plant domestically and then switched gears by announcing plans to open the proposed plant in America. Both the lack of future investment and deindustrialization create a snowball effect, worsening the situation.

Widespread dissatisfaction with Germany’s green policies should be a lesson for America. At the heart of the problem is Germany’s failure to allow for the energy industry to create affordable energy for its citizens. For years, the anti-business green energy agenda has decreased carbon emissions but increased the economic crisis. Germany’s experience shows that America needs a sound energy policy, not the arbitrary climate goals the current administration is pursuing.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/03/08/lesson-america-green-policies-crush-german-economy/

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

Unachievable at any cost

Political blindness in Western Austraia

Two weeks ago, we got a taste of the brave new world of renewable energy. Victoria’s grid collapsed on a hot and windy afternoon. 530,000 homes were left without power, train lines were shut down, schools and businesses had to close their doors, phones couldn’t be used even for emergency calls, and hundreds of sets of traffic lights were out of order.

The same fate awaits Western Australia unless it reverses course on its ideological determination to pursue Net Zero.

In June 2022, the WA state government announced its plan to close all coal-fired power stations (Collie, Muja, and Bluewaters) in the state by 2030 as part of a commitment to an 80 per cent emissions reduction target by that year.

This will result in the removal of two-thirds of the WA network’s current electricity supply.

The justification for this policy was the ‘overwhelming uptake of rooftop solar’, adding that, ‘…an estimated $3.8 billion will be invested in new green power infrastructure in the South West Interconnected System (SWIS), including wind generation and storage, to ensure continued supply stability and affordability. This investment is expected to pay for itself by 2030-31 relative to the status quo of increasing electricity subsidies.’

A detailed analysis conducted for the IPA by Senior Research Fellow Kevin You, former General Manager of Generation at Western Power Mark Chatfield, and this correspondent, demonstrates that this plan is neither feasible nor achievable at any cost.

Our research shows that the cost to replace coal-fired power generation will be far more than the already huge sum of $3.8 billion – it will be far greater than even 10 times that amount.

WA’s vast size means that it is geographically isolated, not only from the rest of the country, but internally. Therefore, it cannot be connected to a national energy grid, as is the case with states on the eastern seaboard. It must – and does – produce and rely on its own energy. Therefore, the huge fluctuations that arise from taking out coal in the main network cannot be addressed by relying on other states.

In the southwest of the state, there has been an historical reliance on coal, but WA also has abundant energy in the form of gas.

Following the discovery of large gas reserves in the mid-1970s on the North West Shelf, the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline (DBP) was constructed. It is one of Western Australia’s most critical pieces of energy infrastructure.

The pipeline was privatised under the Court government in 1998, however, the easement surrounding the pipeline was not privatised. In fact, it was enlarged to accommodate potential future expansions to the gas pipeline’s transmission capacity.

Until now, gas has been able to back up the increasing move to solar and wind. The state’s domestic gas reservation policy, which requires gas exporters to set aside 15 per cent of reserves for domestic use, has been considered a key to avoiding the energy shortages and price rises seen in the east.

However, the warning signs are already there that the WA government’s Net Zero energy policy will not provide the stable, affordable, reliable power its proponents claim.

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) in a recent report suggested WA could face electricity blackouts as soon as 2025 unless it fills a forecast shortfall in energy supply.

This report is the first time AEMO has given a forecast that takes into account WA’s commitment to transitioning off coal-fired energy by 2030, which it says would strip an estimated 1,366 MW of power generation out of the system.

Unfortunately, the WA public is not being told of the true costs of the WA government’s 2030 renewable energy feel-good dream. There is the real threat that Western Australians will not be able to keep the lights on or turn on the air conditioning when they need to.

A key finding of our analysis is that by phasing out coal by 2030 and without expansion of the DBP, even if:

wind capacity from today is trebled

battery capacity is increased nine-fold

the state’s solar capacity is doubled

Greater Perth and the Wheatbelt still risk blackouts close to four months in a year.

Our analysis shows further that, theoretically to maintain the network in the absence of coal and gas, there would have to be a massive overbuild of renewables, requiring approximately:

50 batteries, with a total capacity of 5000 MW, (currently one battery is in service)

8,000 MW of solar factories, currently at 180 MW

12,000 MW of wind factory capacity, currently at 1,040 MW

4,134 MW of rooftop domestic solar capacity, currently it is 2,406 MW

Once transmission easements, poles and wires are added in, we calculate the total cost to be – not $3.8 billion – but more than $52 billion, which is equivalent to over 130 per cent of budgeted general WA government spending for the financial year ending 2024.

This can only result in ever-increasing energy bills for ordinary Western Australians. As far as we can tell, no thorough cost-benefit analysis has been done of the government’s plan, especially in relation to battery production and storage.

Consider also the destruction of the environment – and much of the state’s available arable land – by plastering its landscape with solar panels and wind factories.

All in a reckless pursuit of emissions reduction. Let’s not forget that Australia is responsible for just over 1 per cent of the world’s emissions.

Less than one-fifth of that 1 per cent comes from WA, and about 6 per cent of that one-fifth of the 1 per cent comes from WA’s coal-fired power stations.

Therefore, shutting them down would contribute to reducing roughly 0.013 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

For $52 billion, the money would be better spent keeping coal-fired power stations open for the foreseeable future and in the meantime expanding the DBP and buying gas, which is the only way to avoid blackouts while sensibly reducing emissions.

If WA wants to avoid what happened in Victoria, its government must abandon its ideological fantasy of Net Zero, which, as our research shows, is unachievable at any cost.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/unachievable-at-any-cost/

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

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

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