In this newsletter:
1) German E-car sales collapse 80% following subsidy cut
Clean Energy Wire, 6 February 2023
2) Net Zero is destroying Britain's car industry one by one
The Times, 7 February 2023
3) Ben Marlow: Britain’s imploding electric car industry should admit defeat
The Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2023
4) Net Zero Britain: Churches in danger of closing as they're hit by energy costs
BBC News, 6 February 2023
5) North Sea drillers warn of rig exodus from green Britain
Energy Voice, 6 February 2023
6) The price of Britain's mad fracking ban: UK spent £60bn on imported gas to stave off winter energy crunch
City A.M. 6 February 2023
7) India predicts 500% increase in domestic natural gas demand
OilPrice.com, 6 February 2023
8) Benny Peiser: Europe struggles to ‘compete’ with China on energy production as costs drive inflation
Sky News Australia, 7 February 2023
9) ‘Less groupthink’: Tony Abbott joins UK climate think tank
The Australian, 7 February 2023
The Australian, 7 February 2023
10) Nana Akua: Scrap Net Zero or prepare for an embarrassing but predictable retreat
GB News, 5 February 2023
11) Dalia Marin: German deindustrialization is still looming
Project Syndicate, 6 February 202
12) As the green subsidy war accelerates, the West will be its biggest loser
The Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2023 GB News, 5 February 2023
11) Dalia Marin: German deindustrialization is still looming
Project Syndicate, 6 February 202
12) As the green subsidy war accelerates, the West will be its biggest loser
13) Holman W Jenkins: Al Gore and the end of climate policy
The Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2023
Full details:
1) German E-car sales collapse 80% following subsidy cut
Clean Energy Wire, 6 February 2023
Clean Energy Wire, 6 February 2023
Registrations of new electric vehicles collapsed in Germany following cuts in buyers’ premiums at the beginning of the year. Registrations for battery electric vehicles dropped about 83 percent to 18,100 in January from 104,300 in December, when many people rushed to receive the full subsidy, according to the Federal Motor Transport Authority (KBA).
The share of e-cars fell to 15 percent in January from more than 55 percent in December, while total car registrations dropped three percent, car industry association VDA said.
The government decided in mid-2022 to reduce support payments for new e-cars, arguing they had become increasingly attractive for buyers even without support payments. Last year, e-car buyers received up 6,000 euros from the state when buying a new vehicle, plus up to 3,000 euros from the car manufacturers themselves. At the start of this year, support for battery electric or fuel cell cars dropped to 3,000-4,500 euros.
Full story
2) Net Zero is destroying Britain's car industry one by one
The Times, 7 February 2023
The share of e-cars fell to 15 percent in January from more than 55 percent in December, while total car registrations dropped three percent, car industry association VDA said.
The government decided in mid-2022 to reduce support payments for new e-cars, arguing they had become increasingly attractive for buyers even without support payments. Last year, e-car buyers received up 6,000 euros from the state when buying a new vehicle, plus up to 3,000 euros from the car manufacturers themselves. At the start of this year, support for battery electric or fuel cell cars dropped to 3,000-4,500 euros.
Full story
2) Net Zero is destroying Britain's car industry one by one
The Times, 7 February 2023
High energy costs and an eroding automotive supply chain in Britain are making Nissan Sunderland, the country’s largest car plant, uncompetitive, the carmaker has admitted.
Speaking at the formal unveiling of a reborn alliance between the Japanese company and its longstanding partner, Renault, the French carmaker, executives at Nissan said the Sunderland plant needed “government support”.
It came as the executives confirmed that an electric replacement for the old Micra model aimed at Nissan carbuyers in Europe would be built at Renault’s new ElectriCity manufacturing complex in northern France.
In London to unveil a simplified and equalised cross-shareholding between Renault and Nissan, Makoto Uchida, Nissan’s global chief executive, praised the Sunderland factory as a “very important and a core plant”, but added: “The UK is challenging and we need a supplier base.”
Ashwani Gupta, the chief operating officer, said the future of Nissan Sunderland depended on three issues: making it more attractive as an investment with the help of government support; a reduction in the cost of manufacturing against a backdrop of rising energy costs that are making it more expensive than peer factories on the Continent; and the localisation of a supply chain to reduce the cost of shipping components.
Asked whether Sunderland could regain its competitiveness as a car plant worth investing in, Gupta said: “That is a question that has to be answered.” Asked how it could regain its competitiveness, he said: “The support of government, because we do not have a big [automotive industry] in the UK.”
Full story
3) Ben Marlow: Britain’s imploding electric car industry should admit defeat
The Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2023
Speaking at the formal unveiling of a reborn alliance between the Japanese company and its longstanding partner, Renault, the French carmaker, executives at Nissan said the Sunderland plant needed “government support”.
It came as the executives confirmed that an electric replacement for the old Micra model aimed at Nissan carbuyers in Europe would be built at Renault’s new ElectriCity manufacturing complex in northern France.
In London to unveil a simplified and equalised cross-shareholding between Renault and Nissan, Makoto Uchida, Nissan’s global chief executive, praised the Sunderland factory as a “very important and a core plant”, but added: “The UK is challenging and we need a supplier base.”
Ashwani Gupta, the chief operating officer, said the future of Nissan Sunderland depended on three issues: making it more attractive as an investment with the help of government support; a reduction in the cost of manufacturing against a backdrop of rising energy costs that are making it more expensive than peer factories on the Continent; and the localisation of a supply chain to reduce the cost of shipping components.
Asked whether Sunderland could regain its competitiveness as a car plant worth investing in, Gupta said: “That is a question that has to be answered.” Asked how it could regain its competitiveness, he said: “The support of government, because we do not have a big [automotive industry] in the UK.”
Full story
3) Ben Marlow: Britain’s imploding electric car industry should admit defeat
The Daily Telegraph, 6 February 2023
Britain is deluded to think it has any chance of creating a competitive homegrown electric car industry.
America has the entrepreneurial nous and vision of Elon Musk, as well as the financial and industrial might of Ford. With backing from Warren Buffett, China’s BYD is on the cusp of overtaking Tesla.
Volkswagen has set aside more than $100bn (£83bn) to spend on electric cars, and is planning to create a separate battery manufacturing company entirely from scratch.
In the UK, Britain’s electric dreams are being spearheaded by Lord Botham, who I am willing to bet knows considerably less about clean car technology than he does about the dark art of swing bowling.
And yet, “Beefy” Botham, as he was affectionately known during his cricketing days, has apparently been pivotal in stitching together the latest “rescue deal” for collapsed UK “gigafactory” start-up Britishvolt.
True, the legendary cricketer is the British Government’s trade envoy for Australia these days (comforting to anyone suffering from imposter syndrome, one would imagine). The preferred bidder, Recharge Industries, is sort-of Australian, so Botham’s involvement isn’t entirely spurious – but it is still laughable that Britain’s hopes of becoming a “global hub” for electric vehicles have come to this.
Even now, for all the headlines about how Britishvolt is about to be miraculously revived after imploding predictably last month, there is little of substance to suggest this is likely to be the case.
It’s not just because of Botham’s role – Britishvolt always looked like a long shot, from the moment its top bosses turned up in Northumberland and managed to convince a lot of important people that it had the know-how to build a vast, cutting-edge battery plant on the site of a decommissioned coal-fired power station near Blyth, despite possessing little more than a Powerpoint presentation and planning permission.
Kwasi Kwarteng fell for the sales pitch – the plant would help the UK “fully capture the benefits of a booming electric vehicle market”, the then business secretary claimed. Boris Johnson swallowed it too - “fantastic news” for “our Green Industrial Revolution”, declared our prime minister of the time.
There was also a pledge of government investment – £100m from the Automotive Transformation Fund, a state scheme set up to try and entice battery-makers to these shores to fuel a home-grown electric car. Yet Britishvolt had no working technology, little in the way of assets, insecure funding and perhaps most crucially, not a single paying customer.
Fittingly, details of Recharge’s bid are almost as vague. Backed by Scale Facilitation, a New York-based investment firm, its green credentials don’t sound that much different to Britishvolt’s. It, too, is a start-up with plans to build a battery factory – in Geelong, a former car manufacturing hub in Australia – but, like Britishvolt, that’s all they are.
And, also like Britishvolt, it isn’t allowing an apparent lack of substance to stand in the way of ambition. David Collard, the former accountant behind Scale Facilitation, has pledged to build the Geelong facility, at the same time as reviving Britishvolt’s plans for Blyth, and helping to forge closer advanced manufacturing ties between the UK and Australia for good measure.
It would make far more sense to scrap the entire Britishvolt project. That a business valued at £700m only 12 months ago is expected to be sold for less than £10m when some of the biggest carmakers in the world are pumping tens of billions of pounds into new electric car technology sums up Britain’s efforts.
This country is light years behind the rest of the world and without a battery factory building programme, it can give up any hope of catching up. China has hundreds of gigafactories in the pipeline; continental Europe is on course to have 27 gigafactories by the end of the decade, a sixfold increase on forecasts made just three years ago. Similar numbers are planned in the US.
Industry executives think eight more are needed to maintain current UK car production of 1.5m vehicles a year if all models become electric, while the Faraday Institution estimates it could be as many as 10. So far, we have succeeded in building one – next to Nissan’s sprawling Sunderland plant – and tellingly it is Chinese-owned.
We should admit defeat, give up on our efforts to nurture a plucky national underdog and instead focus on luring established global players to do the work for us. The obvious candidate is Musk. Not only is the Tesla tycoon the number one expert, he is also looking to establish a dozen more such plants in the coming years. The Government should surrender any pretense of wanting to compete if it fails to persuade him to build at least one of them here.
In Germany, the state of Brandenburg allowed Tesla to fell 170 hectares of forest to make way for the world’s second largest lithium ion battery plant after it promised to replace every single tree that was cut down with three new saplings.
Ministers should pull out all the stops here with tax breaks, guarantees of smooth trade with the European market, and the tearing down of red tape. Similar efforts should be made to ensure BMW doesn’t follow through with threats to move production of the all-electric Mini to China, or that Jaguar Land Rover’s owner Tata Motors doesn’t shift electric vehicle production to Slovakia, as it is reportedly considering.
Foreign partners will be essential. Britain is deluded to think it has any chance of creating a competitive homegrown electric car industry.
4) Net Zero Britain: Churches in danger of closing as they're hit by energy costs
BBC News, 6 February 2023
America has the entrepreneurial nous and vision of Elon Musk, as well as the financial and industrial might of Ford. With backing from Warren Buffett, China’s BYD is on the cusp of overtaking Tesla.
Volkswagen has set aside more than $100bn (£83bn) to spend on electric cars, and is planning to create a separate battery manufacturing company entirely from scratch.
In the UK, Britain’s electric dreams are being spearheaded by Lord Botham, who I am willing to bet knows considerably less about clean car technology than he does about the dark art of swing bowling.
And yet, “Beefy” Botham, as he was affectionately known during his cricketing days, has apparently been pivotal in stitching together the latest “rescue deal” for collapsed UK “gigafactory” start-up Britishvolt.
True, the legendary cricketer is the British Government’s trade envoy for Australia these days (comforting to anyone suffering from imposter syndrome, one would imagine). The preferred bidder, Recharge Industries, is sort-of Australian, so Botham’s involvement isn’t entirely spurious – but it is still laughable that Britain’s hopes of becoming a “global hub” for electric vehicles have come to this.
Even now, for all the headlines about how Britishvolt is about to be miraculously revived after imploding predictably last month, there is little of substance to suggest this is likely to be the case.
It’s not just because of Botham’s role – Britishvolt always looked like a long shot, from the moment its top bosses turned up in Northumberland and managed to convince a lot of important people that it had the know-how to build a vast, cutting-edge battery plant on the site of a decommissioned coal-fired power station near Blyth, despite possessing little more than a Powerpoint presentation and planning permission.
Kwasi Kwarteng fell for the sales pitch – the plant would help the UK “fully capture the benefits of a booming electric vehicle market”, the then business secretary claimed. Boris Johnson swallowed it too - “fantastic news” for “our Green Industrial Revolution”, declared our prime minister of the time.
There was also a pledge of government investment – £100m from the Automotive Transformation Fund, a state scheme set up to try and entice battery-makers to these shores to fuel a home-grown electric car. Yet Britishvolt had no working technology, little in the way of assets, insecure funding and perhaps most crucially, not a single paying customer.
Fittingly, details of Recharge’s bid are almost as vague. Backed by Scale Facilitation, a New York-based investment firm, its green credentials don’t sound that much different to Britishvolt’s. It, too, is a start-up with plans to build a battery factory – in Geelong, a former car manufacturing hub in Australia – but, like Britishvolt, that’s all they are.
And, also like Britishvolt, it isn’t allowing an apparent lack of substance to stand in the way of ambition. David Collard, the former accountant behind Scale Facilitation, has pledged to build the Geelong facility, at the same time as reviving Britishvolt’s plans for Blyth, and helping to forge closer advanced manufacturing ties between the UK and Australia for good measure.
It would make far more sense to scrap the entire Britishvolt project. That a business valued at £700m only 12 months ago is expected to be sold for less than £10m when some of the biggest carmakers in the world are pumping tens of billions of pounds into new electric car technology sums up Britain’s efforts.
This country is light years behind the rest of the world and without a battery factory building programme, it can give up any hope of catching up. China has hundreds of gigafactories in the pipeline; continental Europe is on course to have 27 gigafactories by the end of the decade, a sixfold increase on forecasts made just three years ago. Similar numbers are planned in the US.
Industry executives think eight more are needed to maintain current UK car production of 1.5m vehicles a year if all models become electric, while the Faraday Institution estimates it could be as many as 10. So far, we have succeeded in building one – next to Nissan’s sprawling Sunderland plant – and tellingly it is Chinese-owned.
We should admit defeat, give up on our efforts to nurture a plucky national underdog and instead focus on luring established global players to do the work for us. The obvious candidate is Musk. Not only is the Tesla tycoon the number one expert, he is also looking to establish a dozen more such plants in the coming years. The Government should surrender any pretense of wanting to compete if it fails to persuade him to build at least one of them here.
In Germany, the state of Brandenburg allowed Tesla to fell 170 hectares of forest to make way for the world’s second largest lithium ion battery plant after it promised to replace every single tree that was cut down with three new saplings.
Ministers should pull out all the stops here with tax breaks, guarantees of smooth trade with the European market, and the tearing down of red tape. Similar efforts should be made to ensure BMW doesn’t follow through with threats to move production of the all-electric Mini to China, or that Jaguar Land Rover’s owner Tata Motors doesn’t shift electric vehicle production to Slovakia, as it is reportedly considering.
Foreign partners will be essential. Britain is deluded to think it has any chance of creating a competitive homegrown electric car industry.
4) Net Zero Britain: Churches in danger of closing as they're hit by energy costs
BBC News, 6 February 2023
Richard Jones said Holy Trinity Church in the Shropshire village of Yockleton, was among those under pressure.
He said ultimately churches were "in danger" of closing if they could not afford to meet their costs.
Hundreds of churches receive hardship grants and some applied for funding through schemes to become warm hubs.
Full story
5) North Sea drillers warn of rig exodus from green Britain
Energy Voice, 6 February 2023
Energy Voice, 6 February 2023
A consortium of North Sea drilling firms has warned of an offshore rig exodus from the UK amid “minimal opportunities” for its sector.
The group, representing more than a dozen drilling firms, hit out after industry bosses last week described an upcoming clutch of offshore work as a “golden opportunity” for the UK.
Those 12 projects actually “represent a fraction of what is truly needed to meet growing UK energy demands, as well as strengthen regional energy security”, the consortium said.
The group – the North Sea chapter of the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) – told Energy Voice there is “already a migration” of rigs and equipment leaving the North Sea, threatening firms’ ability to carry out work to support the energy transition and energy security.
More than 30 jack-up rigs have left Europe, Asia and the Americas for better opportunities in the Middle East in the last year, it said.
In the rare statement, the IADC called on the UK and Scottish Governments to lead on cooperation to “ensure the sector takes a balanced, long-term approach to the energy transition”.
The move comes following publication of a Scottish Energy strategy which presumes against any new North Sea exploration, and a UK Government windfall tax which levies 75% of industry profits, threatening to undermine investment in low carbon areas like CCUS.
Full story
The group, representing more than a dozen drilling firms, hit out after industry bosses last week described an upcoming clutch of offshore work as a “golden opportunity” for the UK.
Those 12 projects actually “represent a fraction of what is truly needed to meet growing UK energy demands, as well as strengthen regional energy security”, the consortium said.
The group – the North Sea chapter of the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) – told Energy Voice there is “already a migration” of rigs and equipment leaving the North Sea, threatening firms’ ability to carry out work to support the energy transition and energy security.
More than 30 jack-up rigs have left Europe, Asia and the Americas for better opportunities in the Middle East in the last year, it said.
In the rare statement, the IADC called on the UK and Scottish Governments to lead on cooperation to “ensure the sector takes a balanced, long-term approach to the energy transition”.
The move comes following publication of a Scottish Energy strategy which presumes against any new North Sea exploration, and a UK Government windfall tax which levies 75% of industry profits, threatening to undermine investment in low carbon areas like CCUS.
Full story
6) The price of Britain's mad fracking ban: UK spent £60bn on imported gas to stave off winter energy crunch
City A.M. 6 February 2023
City A.M. 6 February 2023
The UK spent £60bn importing gas in just four months to stave off a winter energy crunch, according to analysis from storage experts Highview Power.
Its data reveals that in the absence of renewable energy storage to make the most of record wind generation, the country was forced to purchase expensive fossil fuels when the weather became more volatile over winter.
Britain experienced an unusual combination of wind conditions between this winter between October and January.
Low-carbon power produced 82.5 per cent of Britain’s electricity from 27 December to 9 January, however, the UK also experienced ‘dunkelflaute’ – a German term used widely in the energy sector to refer to cold, still days – when the country experienced little to no wind but still needed energy for heating.
This occurred in both November and mid-January and lack of renewable energy storage during these periods meant the UK was left with no choice but to rely on £60bn of foreign imports of gas to meet consumption needs.
The £60bn figure reflects a vast increase in imports, with data from the Office for National Statistics revealing the UK brought in less than £20bn of gas in 2021 as a whole.
Full story
Its data reveals that in the absence of renewable energy storage to make the most of record wind generation, the country was forced to purchase expensive fossil fuels when the weather became more volatile over winter.
Britain experienced an unusual combination of wind conditions between this winter between October and January.
Low-carbon power produced 82.5 per cent of Britain’s electricity from 27 December to 9 January, however, the UK also experienced ‘dunkelflaute’ – a German term used widely in the energy sector to refer to cold, still days – when the country experienced little to no wind but still needed energy for heating.
This occurred in both November and mid-January and lack of renewable energy storage during these periods meant the UK was left with no choice but to rely on £60bn of foreign imports of gas to meet consumption needs.
The £60bn figure reflects a vast increase in imports, with data from the Office for National Statistics revealing the UK brought in less than £20bn of gas in 2021 as a whole.
Full story
OilPrice.com, 6 February 2023
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday projected that the country’s gas demand would rise 500% due to the rapid pace of development, while its share of global oil demand would more than double.
While the Indian prime minister did not offer a specific time frame for this major boost in demand, he said that the country’s energy demand would be highest in the present decade.
Modi’s statement, delivered during the opening ceremony of India Energy Week 2023, coincides with a recent OPEC report that expects India to be the largest contributor to incremental demand, with the country expected to add some 6.3 million bpd until 2045.Overall, OPEC said it saw demand increasing to 110 million bpd in 2045, up from 97 million bpd in 2021.
Modi predicts India’s share in global oil demand will increase from 5% to 11%.
The Indian prime minister used the occasion to highlight the country’s plans to boost exploration and production, which he said would provide opportunities for investors. Right now, India relies on imports for some 85% of its energy needs, with India and China being the largest importers of oil and gas in the world.
With this in mind, India will remove significant restrictions on exploration, reducing “no-go” areas for E&P companies. India also plans to expand its refining capacity, along with its LNG import capacity by 2030.
Asia is now the biggest buyer of Russian crude since the imposition of Western sanctions following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Some 70% of Russian Urals January loading cargoes were bound for India, according to Reuters data.
India’s oil minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, also said on Monday that regardless of Western sanctions, the country would not shun Russian oil, which it receives at a discount to Brent crude.
“I will be very frank,” Puri said, “we will play the market card …”
8) Benny Peiser: Europe struggles to ‘compete’ with China on energy production as costs drive inflation
Sky News Australia, 7 February 2023
While the Indian prime minister did not offer a specific time frame for this major boost in demand, he said that the country’s energy demand would be highest in the present decade.
Modi’s statement, delivered during the opening ceremony of India Energy Week 2023, coincides with a recent OPEC report that expects India to be the largest contributor to incremental demand, with the country expected to add some 6.3 million bpd until 2045.Overall, OPEC said it saw demand increasing to 110 million bpd in 2045, up from 97 million bpd in 2021.
Modi predicts India’s share in global oil demand will increase from 5% to 11%.
The Indian prime minister used the occasion to highlight the country’s plans to boost exploration and production, which he said would provide opportunities for investors. Right now, India relies on imports for some 85% of its energy needs, with India and China being the largest importers of oil and gas in the world.
With this in mind, India will remove significant restrictions on exploration, reducing “no-go” areas for E&P companies. India also plans to expand its refining capacity, along with its LNG import capacity by 2030.
Asia is now the biggest buyer of Russian crude since the imposition of Western sanctions following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Some 70% of Russian Urals January loading cargoes were bound for India, according to Reuters data.
India’s oil minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, also said on Monday that regardless of Western sanctions, the country would not shun Russian oil, which it receives at a discount to Brent crude.
“I will be very frank,” Puri said, “we will play the market card …”
8) Benny Peiser: Europe struggles to ‘compete’ with China on energy production as costs drive inflation
Sky News Australia, 7 February 2023
The Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Benny Peiser says Europe is “struggling to compete” with China.
“Most of the renewable energy deployed in Europe is produced largely outside of Europe, often in China,” Mr Peiser told Sky News host Chris Kenny.
“China is a cheap energy country, is a cheap labour country, so Europe is struggling to compete because we’re making everything more expensive.
“The cost of energy is the main driver of inflation – we’ve been warning for over 10 years this will end in tears.”
Full interview
13) Holman W Jenkins: Al Gore and the end of climate policy
The Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2023
“Most of the renewable energy deployed in Europe is produced largely outside of Europe, often in China,” Mr Peiser told Sky News host Chris Kenny.
“China is a cheap energy country, is a cheap labour country, so Europe is struggling to compete because we’re making everything more expensive.
“The cost of energy is the main driver of inflation – we’ve been warning for over 10 years this will end in tears.”
Full interview
9) ‘Less groupthink’: Tony Abbott joins UK climate think tank
The Australian, 7 February 2023
The Australian, 7 February 2023
Former prime minister Tony Abbott has called for “genuine science and less groupthink” on climate after joining the board of a British think tank that challenges government policy on global warming.
Mr Abbott is one of the Board of Trustees of the UK based charity, Global Warming Policy Foundation, which challenges “extremely damaging and harmful policies” of governments seeking to mitigate man-made global warming.
Mr Abbott said he was pleased to join GWPF “because it’s consistently injected a note of realism into the climate debate”.
The GWPF is a think tank founded by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, and set up to question government policy around climate change and investigate alternative views on the climate debate.
GWPF says its aim is to raise standards in learning and understanding through rigorous research and analysis, to help inform a balanced debate amongst the interested public and decision-makers and to foster a culture of open debate, tolerance and learning.
The GWPF’s associated entity, Net Zero Watch, monitors and researches the cost of achieving net zero.
Mr Abbott added: “All of us want to save the only planet we have but this should not be by means which impoverish poorer people in richer countries and hold poorer countries back. Right now, in countries like Australia, the impact of climate policy is to make electricity less affordable and less reliable rather than perceptibly to cool the planet. We need more genuine science and less groupthink in this debate – that’s where the GWPF has been a commendably consistent if lonely voice.”
GWPF chairman Dr Jerome Booth said Mr Abbott brings a global perspective and policy insight at the very highest level to the organisation.
“He will further assist our objectives and help our efforts to foster a culture of debate, respect and scrutiny in policy areas that are currently dominated by intolerance, high emotions, moral reasoning and confusion”, Dr Booth said.
Mr Abbott is also an advisor to the UK Board of Trade.
See also
'Genuine science and less groupthink': Former PM Tony Abbott joins board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Tony Abbott appointment to Global Warming Policy Foundation is a 'very’ significant move
Tony Abbott joins leading UK climate-sceptic think tank
11) Dalia Marin: German deindustrialization is still looming
Project Syndicate, 6 February 2023
Germany’s economic model, which relied on cheap Russian gas imports and high-quality industrial exports, has collapsed in the wake of the war in Ukraine and the rise of China. While Germany avoided the recession that many had predicted this winter, restoring long-term competitiveness will be a far bigger challenge.
MUNICH – A few months ago, Germany was bracing for a harsh winter. After Russia cut off Europe’s natural-gas supply and prices more than doubled, German officials warned of power outages and rolling blackouts. Some cities reportedly planned to convert sports facilities into “warming halls” for the poor and the elderly, and the media speculated about energy rationing. But those predictions did not materialize. In the face of a historic challenge, Germany proved to be more resilient than many had believed.
Yet Germany is still panicking. Instead of fretting about gas heaters, however, Germans are now haunted by the specter of deindustrialization. Not a single day goes by without some media outlet or research institute predicting that factory closures and the rise of China will lead to the country’s downfall. The state-owned bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau recently warned that Germany faces “an era of declining prosperity.”
And Yasmin Fahimi, the head of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB), warned that the energy crisis would lead to deindustrialization and massive layoffs.
Meanwhile, the Center for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim called Germany the “big loser” of today’s global economy, placing it 18th out of 21 industrial countries in its competitiveness ranking. Other experts have warned that rising energy costs will force manufacturers to move their operations to Eastern Europe and the United States in response to US protectionism.
What explains this gloomy mood? German business leaders first raised the threat of deindustrialization last April, when Germany was considering a boycott of Russian gas, which at the time accounted for over half of its natural-gas supply. Corporate executives, among them Markus Krebber, CEO of energy company RWE, warned that an embargo on Russian energy would lead to mass unemployment, poverty, and widespread social unrest.
These warnings contrasted with an earlier academic paper by prominent German economists who estimated that the Russian energy embargo would cause a mild to moderate recession. The authors argued that a large economy like Germany has many ways to adjust to this severe shock, such as finding alternative suppliers and switching to other energy sources. Moreover, they argued, the government could step in and soften the boycott’s economic fallout.
As it turned out, the apocalyptic scenarios never materialized, even after Russian President Vladimir Putin shut off the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany. Instead, the German government was indeed able to find alternatives to Russian energy, energy-saving measures reduced gas consumption by 30%, and the winter ended up being milder than expected. The country’s gas supplies have recovered, and prices fell from €350 ($377) per megawatt hour in the summer to €80 per megawatt hour. There were no blackouts, and the decline in gas consumption did not even depress industrial output, as German firms simply became more efficient.
Given its longstanding dependence on Russian gas, the war in Ukraine and subsequent surge in energy prices represented Germany’s biggest crisis since World War II. But the German economy has weathered the storm and is estimated to have grown by 1.9% last year – a far cry from the recession many had expected.
But the real threat is right around the corner. In a troubling sign, China recently overtook Germany as the world’s second-largest car exporter. China’s share of the global electric-vehicle market increased to 28% last year thanks to its dominance in battery manufacturing and the success of Chinese manufacturers like BYD Auto, Wuling, and GAC Motor, whereas the share of German companies like Volkswagen fell from 7% to 4%.
Similarly, China’s car exports to Europe surged from 133,465 in 2019 to 435,080 in 2021, owing to growing demand for Chinese-made EVs. Europe now imports more cars from China than it exports, as the net-zero transition and looming European phase-out of the internal combustion engine threaten to make the German auto industry obsolete.
In addition to car manufacturing, Chinese competition threatens the German machinery sector, a key segment of the Mittelstand – the small and medium-size manufacturers that form the country’s industrial backbone.
Full post
12) As the green subsidy war accelerates, the West will be its biggest loser
The Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2023
Mr Abbott is one of the Board of Trustees of the UK based charity, Global Warming Policy Foundation, which challenges “extremely damaging and harmful policies” of governments seeking to mitigate man-made global warming.
Mr Abbott said he was pleased to join GWPF “because it’s consistently injected a note of realism into the climate debate”.
The GWPF is a think tank founded by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson, and set up to question government policy around climate change and investigate alternative views on the climate debate.
GWPF says its aim is to raise standards in learning and understanding through rigorous research and analysis, to help inform a balanced debate amongst the interested public and decision-makers and to foster a culture of open debate, tolerance and learning.
The GWPF’s associated entity, Net Zero Watch, monitors and researches the cost of achieving net zero.
Mr Abbott added: “All of us want to save the only planet we have but this should not be by means which impoverish poorer people in richer countries and hold poorer countries back. Right now, in countries like Australia, the impact of climate policy is to make electricity less affordable and less reliable rather than perceptibly to cool the planet. We need more genuine science and less groupthink in this debate – that’s where the GWPF has been a commendably consistent if lonely voice.”
GWPF chairman Dr Jerome Booth said Mr Abbott brings a global perspective and policy insight at the very highest level to the organisation.
“He will further assist our objectives and help our efforts to foster a culture of debate, respect and scrutiny in policy areas that are currently dominated by intolerance, high emotions, moral reasoning and confusion”, Dr Booth said.
Mr Abbott is also an advisor to the UK Board of Trade.
See also
'Genuine science and less groupthink': Former PM Tony Abbott joins board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Tony Abbott appointment to Global Warming Policy Foundation is a 'very’ significant move
Tony Abbott joins leading UK climate-sceptic think tank
10) Nana Akua: Scrap Net Zero or prepare for an embarrassing but predictable retreat
GB News, 5 February 2023
It is time for the government to rethink this ideological madness. By their own calculations it is clearly unachievable and frankly ridiculous. Save face and scrap Net zero or prepare for an embarrassing but predictable retreat.
When I talked about the electric car con, a load of very smug EV owners bragged about the money they were saving and how amazing their cars were. How they didn’t have to pay road tax and congestion charges and how they have never been caught short without a charger.
Oh how I returned my smugness when I see now that it is more expensive to power up your electric car, petrol is actually cheaper even at its current extortionate rate, which the powers that be clearly want us to get used to, so the transition from one extortion to another will be smoother, give or take the extra forty grand or so required to supposedly upgrade.
But it seems once again and very predictably something has gone wrong with the math, something you and I knew was blatantly obvious.
If the government are to meet the decarbonisation target in 2035, when the sale of all new petrol and hybrid vehicles will be banned in Europe, in the UK that date is 2030 it would mean according to their own figures, that 80 percent of the miles driven would have to be by electric vehicles, so that’s 4 out of every 5 miles, a 21 fold increase in just 12 years, if that happens, pigs will fly first.
Let’s not even talk about charging points, only then will the UK meet the dreaded Net Zero target by 2050. Even the electric car supply chains are unable facilitate the government’s target.
There aren’t even any fully electrified HGV’s being produced to scale and with this cost of living crisis and spiralling inflation who do they think can afford these things when the incentives to purchase them are crumbling.
And when you’ve got the boss of BP, Bernard Looney announcing that he plans to cut back on renewable energy projects and stick with oil and gas investments after they raked in huge profits again.
I think the words he used were “dial back” on their green energy push.. AND that he’s concerned about the lower returns from renewables like wind and solar.
It’s beginning to sound like the energy companies aren’t prepared to support this ideology either.
Full post
GB News, 5 February 2023
It is time for the government to rethink this ideological madness. By their own calculations it is clearly unachievable and frankly ridiculous. Save face and scrap Net zero or prepare for an embarrassing but predictable retreat.
When I talked about the electric car con, a load of very smug EV owners bragged about the money they were saving and how amazing their cars were. How they didn’t have to pay road tax and congestion charges and how they have never been caught short without a charger.
Oh how I returned my smugness when I see now that it is more expensive to power up your electric car, petrol is actually cheaper even at its current extortionate rate, which the powers that be clearly want us to get used to, so the transition from one extortion to another will be smoother, give or take the extra forty grand or so required to supposedly upgrade.
But it seems once again and very predictably something has gone wrong with the math, something you and I knew was blatantly obvious.
If the government are to meet the decarbonisation target in 2035, when the sale of all new petrol and hybrid vehicles will be banned in Europe, in the UK that date is 2030 it would mean according to their own figures, that 80 percent of the miles driven would have to be by electric vehicles, so that’s 4 out of every 5 miles, a 21 fold increase in just 12 years, if that happens, pigs will fly first.
Let’s not even talk about charging points, only then will the UK meet the dreaded Net Zero target by 2050. Even the electric car supply chains are unable facilitate the government’s target.
There aren’t even any fully electrified HGV’s being produced to scale and with this cost of living crisis and spiralling inflation who do they think can afford these things when the incentives to purchase them are crumbling.
And when you’ve got the boss of BP, Bernard Looney announcing that he plans to cut back on renewable energy projects and stick with oil and gas investments after they raked in huge profits again.
I think the words he used were “dial back” on their green energy push.. AND that he’s concerned about the lower returns from renewables like wind and solar.
It’s beginning to sound like the energy companies aren’t prepared to support this ideology either.
Full post
11) Dalia Marin: German deindustrialization is still looming
Project Syndicate, 6 February 2023
Germany’s economic model, which relied on cheap Russian gas imports and high-quality industrial exports, has collapsed in the wake of the war in Ukraine and the rise of China. While Germany avoided the recession that many had predicted this winter, restoring long-term competitiveness will be a far bigger challenge.
MUNICH – A few months ago, Germany was bracing for a harsh winter. After Russia cut off Europe’s natural-gas supply and prices more than doubled, German officials warned of power outages and rolling blackouts. Some cities reportedly planned to convert sports facilities into “warming halls” for the poor and the elderly, and the media speculated about energy rationing. But those predictions did not materialize. In the face of a historic challenge, Germany proved to be more resilient than many had believed.
Yet Germany is still panicking. Instead of fretting about gas heaters, however, Germans are now haunted by the specter of deindustrialization. Not a single day goes by without some media outlet or research institute predicting that factory closures and the rise of China will lead to the country’s downfall. The state-owned bank Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau recently warned that Germany faces “an era of declining prosperity.”
And Yasmin Fahimi, the head of the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB), warned that the energy crisis would lead to deindustrialization and massive layoffs.
Meanwhile, the Center for European Economic Research (ZEW) in Mannheim called Germany the “big loser” of today’s global economy, placing it 18th out of 21 industrial countries in its competitiveness ranking. Other experts have warned that rising energy costs will force manufacturers to move their operations to Eastern Europe and the United States in response to US protectionism.
What explains this gloomy mood? German business leaders first raised the threat of deindustrialization last April, when Germany was considering a boycott of Russian gas, which at the time accounted for over half of its natural-gas supply. Corporate executives, among them Markus Krebber, CEO of energy company RWE, warned that an embargo on Russian energy would lead to mass unemployment, poverty, and widespread social unrest.
These warnings contrasted with an earlier academic paper by prominent German economists who estimated that the Russian energy embargo would cause a mild to moderate recession. The authors argued that a large economy like Germany has many ways to adjust to this severe shock, such as finding alternative suppliers and switching to other energy sources. Moreover, they argued, the government could step in and soften the boycott’s economic fallout.
As it turned out, the apocalyptic scenarios never materialized, even after Russian President Vladimir Putin shut off the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany. Instead, the German government was indeed able to find alternatives to Russian energy, energy-saving measures reduced gas consumption by 30%, and the winter ended up being milder than expected. The country’s gas supplies have recovered, and prices fell from €350 ($377) per megawatt hour in the summer to €80 per megawatt hour. There were no blackouts, and the decline in gas consumption did not even depress industrial output, as German firms simply became more efficient.
Given its longstanding dependence on Russian gas, the war in Ukraine and subsequent surge in energy prices represented Germany’s biggest crisis since World War II. But the German economy has weathered the storm and is estimated to have grown by 1.9% last year – a far cry from the recession many had expected.
But the real threat is right around the corner. In a troubling sign, China recently overtook Germany as the world’s second-largest car exporter. China’s share of the global electric-vehicle market increased to 28% last year thanks to its dominance in battery manufacturing and the success of Chinese manufacturers like BYD Auto, Wuling, and GAC Motor, whereas the share of German companies like Volkswagen fell from 7% to 4%.
Similarly, China’s car exports to Europe surged from 133,465 in 2019 to 435,080 in 2021, owing to growing demand for Chinese-made EVs. Europe now imports more cars from China than it exports, as the net-zero transition and looming European phase-out of the internal combustion engine threaten to make the German auto industry obsolete.
In addition to car manufacturing, Chinese competition threatens the German machinery sector, a key segment of the Mittelstand – the small and medium-size manufacturers that form the country’s industrial backbone.
Full post
12) As the green subsidy war accelerates, the West will be its biggest loser
The Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2023
The force-fed green transition to nowhere is emerging as the greatest economic and strategic mistake since the credit mania of the 2000s.
The global green trade and subsidy war is accelerating, and last week the European Union fired a return salvo at the U.S. The Green Deal Industrial Plan—that’s really the name—is a direct answer to last year’s U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and as with all trade wars both sides will lose.
Europeans are understandably upset at the IRA’s raw protectionism. The biggest flash point is the consumer tax credit of up to $7,500 that is available only for electric vehicles assembled in North America. Eligibility for half of the credit is tied to buying a car with battery components made in North America and the other half depends on having a battery with minerals extracted in the U.S. or a country with a free-trade agreement with America.
Europeans have also noticed the bill’s tens of billions in subsidies for a wide range of U.S. industries, from carbon capture to wind power. The fear is that this will entice such investment away from Europe.
Hence the Brussels we-too response. The proposed policy offers €250 billion (repurposed from unspent pandemic aid) to subsidize Europe’s green industries. Brussels also will offer a pass until 2025 for EU countries that violate the bloc’s usual anti-subsidy rules for green projects. This blesses aggressive French and German subsidy efforts, while the new EU kitty makes sure smaller countries with shallower pockets get a crack at their own carbon-neutral boondoggles.
Don’t feel too much sympathy for the EU concerning U.S. green subsidies, since the EU was moving to impose a carbon border tax on imports before the IRA. But rather than fighting that tax for the good of manufacturers and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic, the Biden Administration escalated the green trade war with the IRA.
What a political mess this is becoming, as well as a new threat to global growth. The U.S. had long objected to the trade-and-investment-distorting consequences of European industrial subsidies—and Europeans came to agree. That’s why the EU long ago introduced the anti-subsidy rules Brussels now is abandoning.
But the Biden Administration has pursued U.S. industrial policy with a fervor that Donald Trump never imagined. This risks returning the world to the bad old days of nationalist production, less competition, and higher costs for consumers. Green-energy subsidies and border taxes will lead to a misallocation of investment that means higher costs and slower growth. Subsidized companies like GM and other EV makers will become political hostages in the green trade wars.
This is happening even after the pandemic delivered an inflationary lesson in the danger of snarling global trade and supply chains, and as rapidly escalating prices highlight the need for cheap and abundant energy in the West. The force-fed green transition to nowhere is emerging as the greatest economic and strategic mistake since the credit mania of the 2000s. Consumers will pay and pay again.
The global green trade and subsidy war is accelerating, and last week the European Union fired a return salvo at the U.S. The Green Deal Industrial Plan—that’s really the name—is a direct answer to last year’s U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and as with all trade wars both sides will lose.
Europeans are understandably upset at the IRA’s raw protectionism. The biggest flash point is the consumer tax credit of up to $7,500 that is available only for electric vehicles assembled in North America. Eligibility for half of the credit is tied to buying a car with battery components made in North America and the other half depends on having a battery with minerals extracted in the U.S. or a country with a free-trade agreement with America.
Europeans have also noticed the bill’s tens of billions in subsidies for a wide range of U.S. industries, from carbon capture to wind power. The fear is that this will entice such investment away from Europe.
Hence the Brussels we-too response. The proposed policy offers €250 billion (repurposed from unspent pandemic aid) to subsidize Europe’s green industries. Brussels also will offer a pass until 2025 for EU countries that violate the bloc’s usual anti-subsidy rules for green projects. This blesses aggressive French and German subsidy efforts, while the new EU kitty makes sure smaller countries with shallower pockets get a crack at their own carbon-neutral boondoggles.
Don’t feel too much sympathy for the EU concerning U.S. green subsidies, since the EU was moving to impose a carbon border tax on imports before the IRA. But rather than fighting that tax for the good of manufacturers and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic, the Biden Administration escalated the green trade war with the IRA.
What a political mess this is becoming, as well as a new threat to global growth. The U.S. had long objected to the trade-and-investment-distorting consequences of European industrial subsidies—and Europeans came to agree. That’s why the EU long ago introduced the anti-subsidy rules Brussels now is abandoning.
But the Biden Administration has pursued U.S. industrial policy with a fervor that Donald Trump never imagined. This risks returning the world to the bad old days of nationalist production, less competition, and higher costs for consumers. Green-energy subsidies and border taxes will lead to a misallocation of investment that means higher costs and slower growth. Subsidized companies like GM and other EV makers will become political hostages in the green trade wars.
This is happening even after the pandemic delivered an inflationary lesson in the danger of snarling global trade and supply chains, and as rapidly escalating prices highlight the need for cheap and abundant energy in the West. The force-fed green transition to nowhere is emerging as the greatest economic and strategic mistake since the credit mania of the 2000s. Consumers will pay and pay again.
13) Holman W Jenkins: Al Gore and the end of climate policy
The Wall Street Journal, 4 February 2023
He gave us only climate pork and propaganda, but it’s OK because the science is looking up.
Al Gore was right about one thing in his rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos: CO2 emissions have continued to climb and show no sign of being affected by “climate policy.”
He didn’t mention his own contributions to this outcome, intervening in the early Obama years to turn climate policy into an excuse for protectionist pork barrel, with no real effect on climate. Nor that he was the seminal author of a brand of green hyperventilation that almost guaranteed real climate action would become a polarizing dead letter.
He also didn’t mention his singular stroke of luck in the history books, which will let him off more kindly than he deserves because the science now paints a less dire picture of our climate future.
The climate press proved the point, amid his Alpine Vaudeville, by collapsing uncritically in front of a newly-released “Harvard” study allegedly revealing that Exxon 40 years ago predicted today’s warming with “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “astonishing” accuracy.
These adjectives aren’t in the study itself, which is merely tendentious, sponsored by the activists at the Rockefeller Family Fund. But the timing probably wasn’t an accident.
In fact, Exxon’s results were identical to those of other scientists because it collaborated with them. Its findings weren’t hidden “behind closed doors,” as one report alleged. They were published in peer-reviewed journals. Rather blatantly, to get to its desired result, the “Harvard” study attributed to Exxon outside research that its scientists merely “reported.”
This retread builds on Rockefeller’s previous greatest hit, paying journalists in 2016 to flaunt Exxon’s decades-old scientific efforts. Exxon was accused of “emphasizing the uncertainty” when uncertainty was the crucial scientific output. No matter what Exxon said, not sellable to policy makers at the time was spending unknown trillions to reduce future temperatures maybe by 4.5 degrees Celsius, maybe by 1.5 degrees. Yet this was the best guidance science could provide for four decades.
Rockefeller prefers to stress the $30 million Exxon once spent on climate-skeptical think tanks. This money, not the scientific uncertainty or humanity’s desire for cheap energy, explains the failure to enact meaningful CO2 reductions. It’s all Exxon’s fault.
OK, studies like this one sponsored by Rockefeller and served up by provocateurs at the Harvard history department and Germany’s Potsdam Institute exist to exploit media shallowness. They wouldn’t exist otherwise.
The hindsight fallacy abounds. Climate modelers, if their forecasts are borne out, can’t know if they were right for the right reasons or wrong reasons. The study also perilously juggles apples and oranges due to the difference between equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity. More to the point, nothing here redeems Rockefeller philanthropic money being poured down a Greta Thunberg rathole when real needs go unmet.
Never mind. After 40 years, an authoritative U.N. panel, which once shared Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize, has made real progress on the uncertainty puzzle, not only narrowing the consensus range of likely climate outcomes, more importantly reducing the estimated risk of worst-case warming.
This upshot of its long-awaited Sixth Assessment Report in 2021-22 goes unreported by the same press that gobbles up Rockefeller’s Exxon hate-mongering. It significantly uprates the likelihood that human society will weather the expected changes handily. In turn, as I noted recently, scientists have been able to refocus usefully on outlier risks and geoengineering solutions if those outlier risks should materialize.
Hooray. This is progress. In the meantime, though, thanks to Rockefeller, Mr. Gore and others, we ended up with policy option C—spend X trillion to have no effect on climate. Our obsessive focus on green energy subsidies pleases many constituents but incentivizes more energy consumption overall. After all, the human appetite for energy is limitless if the price is right. Meanwhile, unused and even denigrated by the left is the only tool that was ever likely to reduce meaningfully the path of emissions, a carbon tax.
Oh well. Climate policy is effectively over and that’s probably fine. The energy machine will certainly incorporate new technologies, including renewables; there won’t be a major shift in emissions from the path they would have taken anyway.
Mr. Gore will continue his angry prophet act. Politics will continue to fuel a sacred pork scramble. The climate press will balance on its noses whatever memes are tossed its way. And humanity will adapt to the climate it gets, which the best current guess says will probably be another 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer over the next century.
Al Gore was right about one thing in his rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos: CO2 emissions have continued to climb and show no sign of being affected by “climate policy.”
He didn’t mention his own contributions to this outcome, intervening in the early Obama years to turn climate policy into an excuse for protectionist pork barrel, with no real effect on climate. Nor that he was the seminal author of a brand of green hyperventilation that almost guaranteed real climate action would become a polarizing dead letter.
He also didn’t mention his singular stroke of luck in the history books, which will let him off more kindly than he deserves because the science now paints a less dire picture of our climate future.
The climate press proved the point, amid his Alpine Vaudeville, by collapsing uncritically in front of a newly-released “Harvard” study allegedly revealing that Exxon 40 years ago predicted today’s warming with “breathtaking,” “stunning,” “astonishing” accuracy.
These adjectives aren’t in the study itself, which is merely tendentious, sponsored by the activists at the Rockefeller Family Fund. But the timing probably wasn’t an accident.
In fact, Exxon’s results were identical to those of other scientists because it collaborated with them. Its findings weren’t hidden “behind closed doors,” as one report alleged. They were published in peer-reviewed journals. Rather blatantly, to get to its desired result, the “Harvard” study attributed to Exxon outside research that its scientists merely “reported.”
This retread builds on Rockefeller’s previous greatest hit, paying journalists in 2016 to flaunt Exxon’s decades-old scientific efforts. Exxon was accused of “emphasizing the uncertainty” when uncertainty was the crucial scientific output. No matter what Exxon said, not sellable to policy makers at the time was spending unknown trillions to reduce future temperatures maybe by 4.5 degrees Celsius, maybe by 1.5 degrees. Yet this was the best guidance science could provide for four decades.
Rockefeller prefers to stress the $30 million Exxon once spent on climate-skeptical think tanks. This money, not the scientific uncertainty or humanity’s desire for cheap energy, explains the failure to enact meaningful CO2 reductions. It’s all Exxon’s fault.
OK, studies like this one sponsored by Rockefeller and served up by provocateurs at the Harvard history department and Germany’s Potsdam Institute exist to exploit media shallowness. They wouldn’t exist otherwise.
The hindsight fallacy abounds. Climate modelers, if their forecasts are borne out, can’t know if they were right for the right reasons or wrong reasons. The study also perilously juggles apples and oranges due to the difference between equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity. More to the point, nothing here redeems Rockefeller philanthropic money being poured down a Greta Thunberg rathole when real needs go unmet.
Never mind. After 40 years, an authoritative U.N. panel, which once shared Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize, has made real progress on the uncertainty puzzle, not only narrowing the consensus range of likely climate outcomes, more importantly reducing the estimated risk of worst-case warming.
This upshot of its long-awaited Sixth Assessment Report in 2021-22 goes unreported by the same press that gobbles up Rockefeller’s Exxon hate-mongering. It significantly uprates the likelihood that human society will weather the expected changes handily. In turn, as I noted recently, scientists have been able to refocus usefully on outlier risks and geoengineering solutions if those outlier risks should materialize.
Hooray. This is progress. In the meantime, though, thanks to Rockefeller, Mr. Gore and others, we ended up with policy option C—spend X trillion to have no effect on climate. Our obsessive focus on green energy subsidies pleases many constituents but incentivizes more energy consumption overall. After all, the human appetite for energy is limitless if the price is right. Meanwhile, unused and even denigrated by the left is the only tool that was ever likely to reduce meaningfully the path of emissions, a carbon tax.
Oh well. Climate policy is effectively over and that’s probably fine. The energy machine will certainly incorporate new technologies, including renewables; there won’t be a major shift in emissions from the path they would have taken anyway.
Mr. Gore will continue his angry prophet act. Politics will continue to fuel a sacred pork scramble. The climate press will balance on its noses whatever memes are tossed its way. And humanity will adapt to the climate it gets, which the best current guess says will probably be another 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer over the next century.
The London-based Net Zero Watch is a campaign group set up to highlight and discuss the serious implications of expensive and poorly considered climate change policies. The Net Zero Watch newsletter is prepared by Director Dr Benny Peiser - for more information, please visit the website at www.netzerowatch.com.
1 comment:
Consumerism, especiallyof cars, is the enemy of low CO2. Cars are used vsatly more freely than in say the early 1950s. if performance and accomodation of the levels then were accepted now modern i.c. cars could be further efficent. Some sort of basic world car with cheap parts easily replaced and available forever would enable hugely extended life. (Like the old 2 million km Toyota recently reported) It is whole of life world CO2 which matters. I suspect for EVs it is abyssmal.The huge weight consumes other components and wears the raods. The problem is without consumersism there will be manyiunemployed. If as here they spend the time breeding the standard of living will plummet, but it may be the price we have to pay.
Post a Comment