In this newsletter:
1) No more cheap flights is the new reality for Europeans
Bloomberg, 17 April 2023
3) Ross Clark: Net Zero holidays - for the well-off only
The Spectator, 17 April 2023 4) Japan, US and EU block G7 from setting coal phase out date
Climate Home News, 17 April 2023
5) Andrew Stuttaford: Another Tory eco-delusion encounters reality
National Review, 14 April 2023
Bloomberg, 17 April 2023
2) Tories beware: End cheap holidays and voters will react with fury
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
3) Ross Clark: Net Zero holidays - for the well-off only
The Spectator, 17 April 2023
Climate Home News, 17 April 2023
5) Andrew Stuttaford: Another Tory eco-delusion encounters reality
National Review, 14 April 2023
6) The Case for Nukes: Energy abundance will help preserve the liberty that scarcity imperils
Reason, 17 April 2023
Reason, 17 April 2023
7) Ben Wright: Germany is failing on all fronts of Putin’s energy war
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
8) Robert Bryce: Cooking with gas rescued by US courtThe Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
Robert Bryce, 18 April 2023
9) Energy Socialism: California electric companies to charge households based on their income
American Experiment, 17 April 2023
American Experiment, 17 April 2023
10) Biden's green energy plans pose national security risk, Pentagon warns
Fox News, 17 April 2023
Fox News, 17 April 2023
11) Milton Ezrati: China clearly has chosen growth over climate
The Epoch Times, 15 April 2023
The Epoch Times, 15 April 2023
Full details:
1) No more cheap flights is the new reality for Europeans
Bloomberg, 17 April 2023
Bloomberg, 17 April 2023
Airlines face an expensive and challenging few decades ahead as climate compliance laws get stricter.
Jetting off to the Mediterranean this summer? I hope you got a good deal, because cheap flights are becoming increasingly hard to find.
You probably had an inkling that the era of absurdly cheap short-haul flights in Europe was coming to an end. After all, according to travel search engine Kayak, summer flights between the UK and the continent are currently one-third more expensive than last year. But two new reports make it clear that this isn’t just temporary turbulence.
It’s the new reality for flying as airlines face a huge decarbonization challenge and tightening climate-compliance laws.
The first headwind stems from two big changes in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. Right now, they get about half of those allowances for free. But that deal comes to an end in 2026, as the share of allowances they have to pay for starts to rise from 2024. That is effectively going to double their carbon costs over just three years.
The unit price of carbon emissions has also soared recently, topping €100 ($111) for the first time in late February, and it doesn’t seem to be on its way back down. A report by Alex Irving, European transport analyst at Bernstein, puts the resulting cost from these changes for European airlines at about €5 billion in 2027.
Full story
2) Ben Marlow: End cheap holidays and voters will react with fury
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
Climate Home News, 17 April 2023
Jetting off to the Mediterranean this summer? I hope you got a good deal, because cheap flights are becoming increasingly hard to find.
You probably had an inkling that the era of absurdly cheap short-haul flights in Europe was coming to an end. After all, according to travel search engine Kayak, summer flights between the UK and the continent are currently one-third more expensive than last year. But two new reports make it clear that this isn’t just temporary turbulence.
It’s the new reality for flying as airlines face a huge decarbonization challenge and tightening climate-compliance laws.
The first headwind stems from two big changes in the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Airlines must have enough emissions allowances to cover every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere on flights starting and ending in the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. Right now, they get about half of those allowances for free. But that deal comes to an end in 2026, as the share of allowances they have to pay for starts to rise from 2024. That is effectively going to double their carbon costs over just three years.
The unit price of carbon emissions has also soared recently, topping €100 ($111) for the first time in late February, and it doesn’t seem to be on its way back down. A report by Alex Irving, European transport analyst at Bernstein, puts the resulting cost from these changes for European airlines at about €5 billion in 2027.
Full story
2) Ben Marlow: End cheap holidays and voters will react with fury
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
The net zero crusade is in danger of unravelling.
Every time fresh evidence emerges of its true impact, the case for barrelling towards the Government’s self-imposed deadline suffers another damaging blow.
For a better example of the effect that it is having both on people’s lives and electoral politics, you’d be hard pushed to beat the ultra-low emissions zone that Sadiq Khan has imposed on London’s motorists.
The scheme has caused apoplexy among drivers, and with the Mayor accused of ignoring the needs of ordinary people, it represents the most serious threat to his bid to remain in office.
Still, if the capital’s voters think a decision to expand the £12.50-a-day Ulez charge to outer London boroughs is bad, imagine the fury if people wake up one day to discover they can no longer afford to go on holidays abroad.
Decarbonising air travel was always going to come with massive costs.
The chief question is who will foot the bill for such an enormous undertaking. In keeping with all things net zero, it is no surprise to learn that it increasingly looks as if the financial burden is likely to be at least partially shouldered by the consumer.
That such a warning has come from a collective of some of the world’s biggest airlines is no surprise.
The sector talks a good game when it comes to cleaning up its act, espousing the “opportunities” that could come from going green yet it seems reluctant to make the massive investment needed.
In highlighting the costs of switching to more expensive sustainable aviation fuel, the major airlines hope to cajole the Government into partly subsidising the transition.
It is also plainly in the interests of the airline industry to indulge in a little scaremongering.
Stirring discontent and unease throws sand in the wheels of the green revolution, giving big business longer to adapt, and what better way to do that than pointing out that the shift will also partly be paid for out of the pockets of holidaymakers?
Still, at least the impact of net zero has so far remained largely hypothetical.
For all the anger about green levies, household energy bills have been driven higher by fossil fuels and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not the cost of building more wind and solar farms.
Even the Government’s short-sighted petrol and diesel car ban is still years away, albeit looming increasingly large in the rear-view mirror.
A de facto tax on greener flights would be one of the first, real tangible costs that has a big impact on people’s lives.
Prices could jump as much as 20pc, according to the Sustainable Aviation Group.Yet at the same as highlighting the likelihood of a “green premium”, it can’t quite make its mind up as to how damaging such a development would be.
Though some will be put off, most people will “still want to fly” despite what it calls “slightly higher costs”.
In fact, annual passenger numbers are still expected to “grow significantly” – by nearly 250m by 2050 – because most travellers are “happy to pay a bit more to travel”, it predicts.
It would be easy for the Government to be dismissive, too.
Sitting in Westminster, there will be a temptation to be snobbish about the idea of a week’s all-inclusive in Benidorm – but for many people, getting away every year ranks top of their priorities, and the advent of the budget airline industry means that overseas travel is often cheaper than holidaying in Britain.
Our ministers overlook the importance of foreign getaways to the public consciousness at their peril.
Any suggestion that overseas holidays, like electric cars, have become the preserve of the rich, would trigger widespread discontent that would make the Ulez backlash look like a storm in a teacup.
Net zero and the fight against climate change is enough of a confused mess as it is without denying hard-working families a well-earned summer break.
Everywhere our political overlords turn, they run into another humiliating dilemma caused by the blind pursuit of decarbonisation.
On Monday, Germany, bullied into a u-turn by the country’s catastrophising eco-fascists, pulled the plug on its last three nuclear power plants.
The move was a massive victory for the anti-nuclear movement, whose opposition had grown louder following the Fukushima disaster of 2011, but as an act of self-harm there aren’t many greater.
The move is a massive setback for energy security, and German emissions, with much of the lost output having been replaced by coal-fired power plants.
Elsewhere, a crunch weekend meeting of G7 energy ministers ended without an agreement on a deadline to halt new coal investments as the reality of the ongoing energy crunch continues to bite; Joe Biden’s climate presidency has been eviscerated by his approval of another Alaskan gas mega-project in the space of just a few short weeks; and our own Government’s heat pump programme has been a disaster, undermined by prohibitive costs and ineffective technology.
Every time fresh evidence emerges of its true impact, the case for barrelling towards the Government’s self-imposed deadline suffers another damaging blow.
For a better example of the effect that it is having both on people’s lives and electoral politics, you’d be hard pushed to beat the ultra-low emissions zone that Sadiq Khan has imposed on London’s motorists.
The scheme has caused apoplexy among drivers, and with the Mayor accused of ignoring the needs of ordinary people, it represents the most serious threat to his bid to remain in office.
Still, if the capital’s voters think a decision to expand the £12.50-a-day Ulez charge to outer London boroughs is bad, imagine the fury if people wake up one day to discover they can no longer afford to go on holidays abroad.
Decarbonising air travel was always going to come with massive costs.
The chief question is who will foot the bill for such an enormous undertaking. In keeping with all things net zero, it is no surprise to learn that it increasingly looks as if the financial burden is likely to be at least partially shouldered by the consumer.
That such a warning has come from a collective of some of the world’s biggest airlines is no surprise.
The sector talks a good game when it comes to cleaning up its act, espousing the “opportunities” that could come from going green yet it seems reluctant to make the massive investment needed.
In highlighting the costs of switching to more expensive sustainable aviation fuel, the major airlines hope to cajole the Government into partly subsidising the transition.
It is also plainly in the interests of the airline industry to indulge in a little scaremongering.
Stirring discontent and unease throws sand in the wheels of the green revolution, giving big business longer to adapt, and what better way to do that than pointing out that the shift will also partly be paid for out of the pockets of holidaymakers?
Still, at least the impact of net zero has so far remained largely hypothetical.
For all the anger about green levies, household energy bills have been driven higher by fossil fuels and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not the cost of building more wind and solar farms.
Even the Government’s short-sighted petrol and diesel car ban is still years away, albeit looming increasingly large in the rear-view mirror.
A de facto tax on greener flights would be one of the first, real tangible costs that has a big impact on people’s lives.
Prices could jump as much as 20pc, according to the Sustainable Aviation Group.Yet at the same as highlighting the likelihood of a “green premium”, it can’t quite make its mind up as to how damaging such a development would be.
Though some will be put off, most people will “still want to fly” despite what it calls “slightly higher costs”.
In fact, annual passenger numbers are still expected to “grow significantly” – by nearly 250m by 2050 – because most travellers are “happy to pay a bit more to travel”, it predicts.
It would be easy for the Government to be dismissive, too.
Sitting in Westminster, there will be a temptation to be snobbish about the idea of a week’s all-inclusive in Benidorm – but for many people, getting away every year ranks top of their priorities, and the advent of the budget airline industry means that overseas travel is often cheaper than holidaying in Britain.
Our ministers overlook the importance of foreign getaways to the public consciousness at their peril.
Any suggestion that overseas holidays, like electric cars, have become the preserve of the rich, would trigger widespread discontent that would make the Ulez backlash look like a storm in a teacup.
Net zero and the fight against climate change is enough of a confused mess as it is without denying hard-working families a well-earned summer break.
Everywhere our political overlords turn, they run into another humiliating dilemma caused by the blind pursuit of decarbonisation.
On Monday, Germany, bullied into a u-turn by the country’s catastrophising eco-fascists, pulled the plug on its last three nuclear power plants.
The move was a massive victory for the anti-nuclear movement, whose opposition had grown louder following the Fukushima disaster of 2011, but as an act of self-harm there aren’t many greater.
The move is a massive setback for energy security, and German emissions, with much of the lost output having been replaced by coal-fired power plants.
Elsewhere, a crunch weekend meeting of G7 energy ministers ended without an agreement on a deadline to halt new coal investments as the reality of the ongoing energy crunch continues to bite; Joe Biden’s climate presidency has been eviscerated by his approval of another Alaskan gas mega-project in the space of just a few short weeks; and our own Government’s heat pump programme has been a disaster, undermined by prohibitive costs and ineffective technology.
3) Ross Clark: Net Zero holidays - for the well-off only
The Spectator, 17 April 2023
The Spectator, 17 April 2023
Are we going to have to give up flying to save the planet? Many climate campaigners have been saying so for years, but now Sustainable Aviation – a trade body which represents the UK aviation industry – seems to agree, at least in the case of less well-off passengers.
It is rather significant that the UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air
Today, it has published a ‘road map’ showing how the industry intends to decarbonise, in order to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – in line with the government’s self-imposed, legally-binding target. It proposes that 14 per cent of emissions cuts will come from ‘demand reduction’ – i.e. potential passengers being put off flying by a rise in the price of airline tickets.
A further 39 per cent will come from a switch to ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ – by which it means synthetic fuels manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, the whole process using only carbon-free electricity. Another 16 per cent will come from the use of hydrogen and electric-powered aircraft for some shorter and lower-speed journeys, 14 per cent from more efficient engines, 4 per cent from more efficient flightpaths and 13 per cent from ‘carbon removals’ (which means using carbon capture and storage to mop up the remaining emissions).
It is a lot more optimistic than the conclusion of a report in 2019 by UK FIRES, a consortium of academics which is government-funded through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The report, which looked into how the aviation industry might be decarbonised by 2050, among other things, concluded: ‘There are no options for zero emissions flight in the time available for action, so the industry faces a rapid contraction.’ It went on to say that it was possible that a limited aviation industry using electric power might be allowed to exist after 2050 but otherwise it would be curtains for our chances of travelling by air.
Nevertheless, it is rather significant that the UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air in order for Britain to reach its net zero target. There is, after all, little sign of contraction in the airline industry over much of the world. China, for example, is still planning to expand its network of airports from 241 (at the end of 2020) to 450 by 2035. While Sustainable Aviation’s plans don’t necessarily imply an absolute contraction in the UK aviation industry – it forecasts a decline in passengers relative to the numbers who would take to the air in the absence of a decarbonisation plan – it does seem to admit to something that the government has so far been loathe to acknowledge: that net zero means higher costs which for some people will be prohibitive. There was no mention of people having to fly less in the government’s Jet Zero strategy published last summer – rather it promised us that ‘passengers can look forward to guilt-free flying’.
Moreover, it has to be said that Sustainable Aviation’s plans depend on technologies which have yet to be scaled-up on a commercial basis: such as synthetic fuels, hydrogen and electric planes. There is no guarantee that attempts to do so will succeed. If they disappoint, then it may mean a far steeper rise in the price of flying – and a far steeper decline in the numbers of people able to afford do so.
I don’t know if the authors of the Sustainable Aviation report had a sense of irony when calling it a ‘road map’, but in practice that is what it will almost certainly mean: long coach journeys for people who, at present, are able to enjoy holidays by budget airline.
Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won’t Even Save the Planet) by Ross Clark is published by Forum Press
4) Japan, US and EU block G7 from setting coal phase out dateIt is rather significant that the UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air
Today, it has published a ‘road map’ showing how the industry intends to decarbonise, in order to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 – in line with the government’s self-imposed, legally-binding target. It proposes that 14 per cent of emissions cuts will come from ‘demand reduction’ – i.e. potential passengers being put off flying by a rise in the price of airline tickets.
A further 39 per cent will come from a switch to ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ – by which it means synthetic fuels manufactured from hydrogen and carbon dioxide, the whole process using only carbon-free electricity. Another 16 per cent will come from the use of hydrogen and electric-powered aircraft for some shorter and lower-speed journeys, 14 per cent from more efficient engines, 4 per cent from more efficient flightpaths and 13 per cent from ‘carbon removals’ (which means using carbon capture and storage to mop up the remaining emissions).
It is a lot more optimistic than the conclusion of a report in 2019 by UK FIRES, a consortium of academics which is government-funded through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. The report, which looked into how the aviation industry might be decarbonised by 2050, among other things, concluded: ‘There are no options for zero emissions flight in the time available for action, so the industry faces a rapid contraction.’ It went on to say that it was possible that a limited aviation industry using electric power might be allowed to exist after 2050 but otherwise it would be curtains for our chances of travelling by air.
Nevertheless, it is rather significant that the UK aviation industry seems to have nodded along with the idea that some passengers are going to be priced out of the air in order for Britain to reach its net zero target. There is, after all, little sign of contraction in the airline industry over much of the world. China, for example, is still planning to expand its network of airports from 241 (at the end of 2020) to 450 by 2035. While Sustainable Aviation’s plans don’t necessarily imply an absolute contraction in the UK aviation industry – it forecasts a decline in passengers relative to the numbers who would take to the air in the absence of a decarbonisation plan – it does seem to admit to something that the government has so far been loathe to acknowledge: that net zero means higher costs which for some people will be prohibitive. There was no mention of people having to fly less in the government’s Jet Zero strategy published last summer – rather it promised us that ‘passengers can look forward to guilt-free flying’.
Moreover, it has to be said that Sustainable Aviation’s plans depend on technologies which have yet to be scaled-up on a commercial basis: such as synthetic fuels, hydrogen and electric planes. There is no guarantee that attempts to do so will succeed. If they disappoint, then it may mean a far steeper rise in the price of flying – and a far steeper decline in the numbers of people able to afford do so.
I don’t know if the authors of the Sustainable Aviation report had a sense of irony when calling it a ‘road map’, but in practice that is what it will almost certainly mean: long coach journeys for people who, at present, are able to enjoy holidays by budget airline.
Not Zero: How an Irrational Target Will Impoverish You, Help China (and Won’t Even Save the Planet) by Ross Clark is published by Forum Press
Climate Home News, 17 April 2023
The G7 group of big, wealthy countries has failed to agree a date by which they will stop making electricity with coal.
At the G7 environment ministers meeting in the Japanese city of Sapporo, the United Kingdom and Canada wanted to “set a 2030 date for completing the goal of an accelerated phase out of domestic unabated coal power generation”.
France accepted this but they were opposed by Japan, the United States and the European Union, according to an annotated draft seen by Climate Home.
In the final 36-page communique, environment ministers said they would prioritise “concrete and timely steps towards the goal of accelerating the phase-out of domestic unabated coal power generation”. But they stopped short of setting a specific deadline.
At the end of the summit, Canada’s environment minister Steven Guilbeault said that “phasing out coal-fired electricity generation by 2030 has never been more urgent”.
E3G analyst Alden Meyer criticised the hold-outs. He said: “Everytime they [G7 countries] allow carveouts, they give other countries excuses to say, ‘Well you talk a big game, but you’re not delivering at home’”. [...]
The G7 ministers said they "recognized the need" to end the construction of new coal-fired power plants, unless they have carbon capture facilities and called on other countries to stop building these power plants.
The International Energy Agency has said that this is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5C.
According to Global Energy Monitor, the G7 accounts for 15% of the world's coal power plant capacity. But the only G7 country planning to build new coal-fired power plants is Japan, which has three being built and one in the pre-construction stage.
China has over 300 coal power plants planned and now accounts for nearly three-quarters of the world's planned coal capacity.
Full post
5) Andrew Stuttaford: Another Tory eco-delusion encounters reality
National Review, 14 April 2023
At the G7 environment ministers meeting in the Japanese city of Sapporo, the United Kingdom and Canada wanted to “set a 2030 date for completing the goal of an accelerated phase out of domestic unabated coal power generation”.
France accepted this but they were opposed by Japan, the United States and the European Union, according to an annotated draft seen by Climate Home.
In the final 36-page communique, environment ministers said they would prioritise “concrete and timely steps towards the goal of accelerating the phase-out of domestic unabated coal power generation”. But they stopped short of setting a specific deadline.
At the end of the summit, Canada’s environment minister Steven Guilbeault said that “phasing out coal-fired electricity generation by 2030 has never been more urgent”.
E3G analyst Alden Meyer criticised the hold-outs. He said: “Everytime they [G7 countries] allow carveouts, they give other countries excuses to say, ‘Well you talk a big game, but you’re not delivering at home’”. [...]
The G7 ministers said they "recognized the need" to end the construction of new coal-fired power plants, unless they have carbon capture facilities and called on other countries to stop building these power plants.
The International Energy Agency has said that this is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5C.
According to Global Energy Monitor, the G7 accounts for 15% of the world's coal power plant capacity. But the only G7 country planning to build new coal-fired power plants is Japan, which has three being built and one in the pre-construction stage.
China has over 300 coal power plants planned and now accounts for nearly three-quarters of the world's planned coal capacity.
Full post
5) Andrew Stuttaford: Another Tory eco-delusion encounters reality
National Review, 14 April 2023
There are many, many absurdities surrounding Britain’s “race” to net zero, a race that it seems intent on running while wearing an extra hair shirt and shouting at laggards to speed up toward the cliff.
One has been the notion that, although the U.K.’s contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions is negligible (just over 1 percent), its efforts would set a powerful moral example.
Here from 2021 is Boris Johnson, writing at a time when he was Britain’s prime minister (my emphasis added):
"The United Kingdom is not afraid to lead the charge towards global net zero at COP26, because history has never been made by those who sit at the back of the class hoping not to be called on. Indeed, as we set an example to the world by showing that reaching Net Zero is entirely possible, so the likes of China and Russia are following our lead with their own net zero targets, as prices tumble and green tech becomes the global norm."
There may, just perhaps, be reasons to doubt that Russia’s and China’s net-zero targets are sincere. And there is every reason to doubt that Johnson’s bombast had anything to do with them.
But if the U.K. is not inspiring Russia and China, what about more ideologically congenial countries?
Japan Times:
"Group of Seven nations are butting heads over the timeline for phasing out coal-fired power ahead of next weekend’s summit of top energy and environmental ministers.
Draft communique documents circulated before negotiations resume Tuesday show the European Union, the U.S. and Japan expressed reservations about a U.K. proposal to set a 2030 deadline for phasing out unabated domestic coal power generation. The language, which won France’s backing, also would have recognized the need to “cancel the pipeline of new global coal power generation projects,” and therefore have the G7 countries committing to end construction of new domestic coal-fired power plants and work with international partners to end similar efforts globally.
While Japan, the U.S. and EU indicated reservations, Germany offered alternative language that would have emphasized the goal of phasing out domestic unabated coal power generation “ideally by 2030” or “in the 2030s.” Japan, which hosts the G7 this year, has proposed reaffirming the commitment in last year’s G-7 leaders’ statement “to achieving a fully or predominantly decarbonized power sector by 2035.”
Maybe the U.K., now also supported by France (which might do better to raise this issue with its pals in Beijing), will get its way in the end, but even the pushback that Britain is seeing at the moment would suggest that the force of its example is less than Johnson, lost perhaps in dreams of vanished imperial grandeur, imagined.
Full post
One has been the notion that, although the U.K.’s contribution to greenhouse-gas emissions is negligible (just over 1 percent), its efforts would set a powerful moral example.
Here from 2021 is Boris Johnson, writing at a time when he was Britain’s prime minister (my emphasis added):
"The United Kingdom is not afraid to lead the charge towards global net zero at COP26, because history has never been made by those who sit at the back of the class hoping not to be called on. Indeed, as we set an example to the world by showing that reaching Net Zero is entirely possible, so the likes of China and Russia are following our lead with their own net zero targets, as prices tumble and green tech becomes the global norm."
There may, just perhaps, be reasons to doubt that Russia’s and China’s net-zero targets are sincere. And there is every reason to doubt that Johnson’s bombast had anything to do with them.
But if the U.K. is not inspiring Russia and China, what about more ideologically congenial countries?
Japan Times:
"Group of Seven nations are butting heads over the timeline for phasing out coal-fired power ahead of next weekend’s summit of top energy and environmental ministers.
Draft communique documents circulated before negotiations resume Tuesday show the European Union, the U.S. and Japan expressed reservations about a U.K. proposal to set a 2030 deadline for phasing out unabated domestic coal power generation. The language, which won France’s backing, also would have recognized the need to “cancel the pipeline of new global coal power generation projects,” and therefore have the G7 countries committing to end construction of new domestic coal-fired power plants and work with international partners to end similar efforts globally.
While Japan, the U.S. and EU indicated reservations, Germany offered alternative language that would have emphasized the goal of phasing out domestic unabated coal power generation “ideally by 2030” or “in the 2030s.” Japan, which hosts the G7 this year, has proposed reaffirming the commitment in last year’s G-7 leaders’ statement “to achieving a fully or predominantly decarbonized power sector by 2035.”
Maybe the U.K., now also supported by France (which might do better to raise this issue with its pals in Beijing), will get its way in the end, but even the pushback that Britain is seeing at the moment would suggest that the force of its example is less than Johnson, lost perhaps in dreams of vanished imperial grandeur, imagined.
Full post
6) The Case for Nukes: Energy abundance will help preserve the liberty that scarcity imperils
Reason, 17 April 2023
Reason, 17 April 2023
Zubrin's book shows the urgency of unleashing energy abundance. He argues convincingly that a future of bountiful energy could help preserve the liberty that scarcity often imperils. Embracing freedom is the surest way to power the future.
By Chelsea Follett
Refreshingly pragmatic and nonpartisan, The Case for Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future (Polaris Books, 2023) by Robert Zubrin offers a sweeping history of energy technology advances.
It also provides a taxonomy of the enemies of nuclear power, including Malthusians and "degrowth" advocates who would, ironically, limit the world's only scalable clean energy technology in the name of protecting the environment. The book launches a compelling and detailed defense of one of humanity's most promising yet misunderstood sources of energy.
Policy makers across the political spectrum would be wise to heed Zubrin's call to reform and liberalize what he calls the "regulatory whipsawing and strangulation of the nuclear industry."
Zubrin pulls no punches, refusing to play games of political tribalism (i.e., opining that climate change "has become politicized to the point where opposing parties have chosen to either deny it or grossly exaggerate it"). While he presents nuclear energy's potential to lower emissions as a huge positive, he also notes, "The existential threat facing humanity is not climate change. It is the ideologies of despair."
Specifically, when people see the world as a zero-sum battle over scarce energy and limited resources, such desperation can curtail freedoms and even produce unthinkable atrocities. As Zubrin writes, "If the belief persists that there is only so much to go around, then the haves and the want-to-haves are going to have to duke it out, the only question being when." He frames producing ample energy as not only an economic but also a moral imperative.
Although the book's main point may be to promote nuclear power as a solution to some of society's problems, Zubrin's most gripping insight lies not in the specifics of its case for nuclear energy but in its broader dual thesis about the relationship between energy abundance (regardless of the energy's source) and freedom. He writes that energy technology "is the foundation for freedom." He posits both that free societies are better able to produce energy and that access to more energy liberates mankind.
Zubrin tells of how, as civilization has become increasingly energy-intensive, our employment of energy has liberated humanity—particularly women—from grinding labor. "Powered mills had the same significance for women of the Twelfth Century as washing machines did for those of the Twentieth," Zubrin claims. He quotes the ancient Greek poet Antipater of Thessalonica, who praised the water wheel's reduction of women's work hours with these words:
"Hold back your hand from the mills, you grinding girls. Even if the cockcrow heralds the dawn, sleep on. For Demeter [the goddess of harvest and agriculture] has imposed the labors of your hands on the [water] nymphs, who leaping down upon the topmost part of the wheel, rotate its axle; with encircling cogs, it turns the hollow weight of the Nisyrian millstones. If we learn to feast toil-free on the fruits of the earth, we taste again the golden age."
The water wheel saving women from waking at sunrise for the mind-numbing task of grinding grain to make bread is just one more example of how technological advances throughout history have arguably benefited women even more than men.
Harnessing energy and mechanizing labor has unshackled countless individuals from exhausting toil—a liberating process that is ongoing in many countries as more households gain access to electricity and labor-saving devices such as laundry machines. Given how many tasks now delegated to electric machines traditionally fell to women, perhaps it is unsurprising that many prominent advocates of an energy-abundant future fueled by nuclear power are women, or as Zubrin alliteratively puts it, a "fine friendly force of fierce feminine fission freedom fighters."
Of course, as Zubrin would likely agree, energy access alone does not create freedom, even if it may help to counter the scarcity mindset that is so often freedom's enemy. One need only look to the Gulf petrostates featuring both massive oil fields and authoritarian political systems to find proof that energy abundance is insufficient to spread liberalism or gender equality.
By Chelsea Follett
Refreshingly pragmatic and nonpartisan, The Case for Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future (Polaris Books, 2023) by Robert Zubrin offers a sweeping history of energy technology advances.
It also provides a taxonomy of the enemies of nuclear power, including Malthusians and "degrowth" advocates who would, ironically, limit the world's only scalable clean energy technology in the name of protecting the environment. The book launches a compelling and detailed defense of one of humanity's most promising yet misunderstood sources of energy.
Policy makers across the political spectrum would be wise to heed Zubrin's call to reform and liberalize what he calls the "regulatory whipsawing and strangulation of the nuclear industry."
Zubrin pulls no punches, refusing to play games of political tribalism (i.e., opining that climate change "has become politicized to the point where opposing parties have chosen to either deny it or grossly exaggerate it"). While he presents nuclear energy's potential to lower emissions as a huge positive, he also notes, "The existential threat facing humanity is not climate change. It is the ideologies of despair."
Specifically, when people see the world as a zero-sum battle over scarce energy and limited resources, such desperation can curtail freedoms and even produce unthinkable atrocities. As Zubrin writes, "If the belief persists that there is only so much to go around, then the haves and the want-to-haves are going to have to duke it out, the only question being when." He frames producing ample energy as not only an economic but also a moral imperative.
Although the book's main point may be to promote nuclear power as a solution to some of society's problems, Zubrin's most gripping insight lies not in the specifics of its case for nuclear energy but in its broader dual thesis about the relationship between energy abundance (regardless of the energy's source) and freedom. He writes that energy technology "is the foundation for freedom." He posits both that free societies are better able to produce energy and that access to more energy liberates mankind.
Zubrin tells of how, as civilization has become increasingly energy-intensive, our employment of energy has liberated humanity—particularly women—from grinding labor. "Powered mills had the same significance for women of the Twelfth Century as washing machines did for those of the Twentieth," Zubrin claims. He quotes the ancient Greek poet Antipater of Thessalonica, who praised the water wheel's reduction of women's work hours with these words:
"Hold back your hand from the mills, you grinding girls. Even if the cockcrow heralds the dawn, sleep on. For Demeter [the goddess of harvest and agriculture] has imposed the labors of your hands on the [water] nymphs, who leaping down upon the topmost part of the wheel, rotate its axle; with encircling cogs, it turns the hollow weight of the Nisyrian millstones. If we learn to feast toil-free on the fruits of the earth, we taste again the golden age."
The water wheel saving women from waking at sunrise for the mind-numbing task of grinding grain to make bread is just one more example of how technological advances throughout history have arguably benefited women even more than men.
Harnessing energy and mechanizing labor has unshackled countless individuals from exhausting toil—a liberating process that is ongoing in many countries as more households gain access to electricity and labor-saving devices such as laundry machines. Given how many tasks now delegated to electric machines traditionally fell to women, perhaps it is unsurprising that many prominent advocates of an energy-abundant future fueled by nuclear power are women, or as Zubrin alliteratively puts it, a "fine friendly force of fierce feminine fission freedom fighters."
Of course, as Zubrin would likely agree, energy access alone does not create freedom, even if it may help to counter the scarcity mindset that is so often freedom's enemy. One need only look to the Gulf petrostates featuring both massive oil fields and authoritarian political systems to find proof that energy abundance is insufficient to spread liberalism or gender equality.
Oil-rich Saudi Arabia did not even issue driver's licenses to its female citizens until five years ago. It is clear that freedom leads to energy abundance. It is more doubtful that energy abundance necessarily leads to freedom broadly understood—although it at least defuses scarcity-based rationales for limiting human liberty. (Sadly, authoritarians have invented many other justifications for restricting freedom.)
While energy abundance and freedom may be somewhat mutually reinforcing, if humanity were to pick only one, the choice seems clear: institutions and policies of freedom. History shows that free people in lands devoid of natural resources can innovate their way to high living standards. (As Zubrin points out, "It is human ingenuity that turns natural raw materials into resources.")
Full post
7) Ben Wright: Germany is failing on all fronts of Putin’s energy war
The Daily Telegraph, 18 April 2023
Berlin will rue the day it capitulated to the anti-nuclear mob
Elon Musk is rarely short of an opinion or two and, true to form, this time last year he weighed in on Germany’s highly fraught energy debate. The country was phasing out its nuclear power plants. Was this, he was asked, a good idea?
Short answer: hell, no!“This is total madness. I want to be clear: total madness,” the billionaire entrepreneur told Die Welt. “In my opinion, Germany should not only not shut down the nuclear power plants, it should reopen the ones that are shut down.”
The interview occurred just a couple of months after Russia had invaded Ukraine and Musk’s critique basically came in two parts: Germany’s decision to shun nuclear power would be bad for the environment and bad for geopolitical stability. “Listen, playtime is over, okay,” he said. “It’s a national security risk to shut these things down.”
It’s hard to disagree. Unfortunately, Germany did. Over the weekend the last remaining nuclear power plants in the country were switched off. To do this with Vladimir Putin's troops still in Ukraine is a case study in irrational fear trumping a proper appraisal of risk.
The energy trilemma that countries face is how to maintain energy security and reduce emissions while keeping costs down. Germany is failing on all three fronts.
The country’s environmentalists believe they have won a great victory; they may actually end up setting their cause back by a generation. A public backlash was starting to build even as the mothballs were being readied.
Thirty years ago only 3pc of the population was in favour of building new nuclear plants. A similar survey conducted by Der Spiegel last August found that 41pc of Germans were in favour of new plants and over two-thirds wanted the lives of existing plants to be extended by at least five years.
That's quite the turn-around. Perceptions about the risk of nuclear energy, especially in Germany, are strongly influenced by two accidents: Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011.
The first accident resulted in a radioactive cloud heading towards Germany just as anti-nuclear sentiment was building in the country. The second sparked protests that persuaded Angela Merkel, a trained physicist who had previously been a vocal advocate of atomic power, to bring forward the phaseout of nuclear power plants from 2036 to 2022.
Nuclear power is far from perfect. It’s expensive to build new plants and there are still questions about what to do with the radioactive waste that is generated (although there have been significant technological advances). But it's not dangerous.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were tragic events and viscerally scary but the number of deaths they caused was a rounding error compared to those that are caused each and every year by fossil fuel emissions.
If you add up all the deaths caused by each energy source - including from air pollution and accidents throughout the supply chain - brown coal (the grubbiest kind) is responsible for 32.72 deaths per terawatt hour, while standard coal accounts for 24.62 deaths, according to Our World in Data.
By contrast, nuclear power is responsible for just 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour. That’s a touch more than solar (0.02 deaths) and a little less than wind (0.04 deaths).
One terawatt hour is roughly the amount of electricity consumed by 150,000 citizens in a developed country each year. So, another way of putting these numbers into context is to imagine two European towns each with 150,000 residents: Smogstadt gets all of its energy from coal while Atomville is entirely served by nuclear power.
In these hypothetical conurbations you would expect, on average, 25 people a year to die prematurely in Smogstadt; meanwhile there would be just one premature death every 33 years in Atomville (by which time Smogstadt’s overworked undertaker would have planted an extra 825 residents).
Now, imagine voluntarily deciding to move from Atomville to Sootstadt. And yet that is, in effect, what Germany has just done. Yes, the country is also rushing to expand its renewable energy capacity. But there’s no getting around the fact that, in the short term at least, the closure of nuclear power plants will result in more fossil fuels getting burnt.
Germany has had to recommission 20 coal-fired plants in the last 12 months alone to provide the necessary baseload power to help deal with fluctuations in wind and solar power production. Meanwhile, business leaders are warning that high energy prices in Germany risk forcing many companies – especially the kind of energy-intensive manufacturers for which the country is rightly famed – into bankruptcy.
And this is just the quantitative impact of the wrong-headed decision. Much harder to measure is the effect on geopolitics. Having started to wind down nuclear power after Fukushima, Germany was importing more than half of its natural gas from Russia before Putin ordered his troops to invade Ukraine.
The result was soaring energy prices and warnings about blackouts. But Europe’s dependency on Russian hydrocarbons is also likely to have figured in Putin’s calculations when deciding whether to march on Kyiv in the first place.
It can be no coincidence that central and eastern European nations have taken the far more pragmatic view that atomic power is the best way to ensure energy independence while also lowering carbon emissions.
Full post
8) Robert Bryce: Cooking with gas rescued by US courtElon Musk is rarely short of an opinion or two and, true to form, this time last year he weighed in on Germany’s highly fraught energy debate. The country was phasing out its nuclear power plants. Was this, he was asked, a good idea?
Short answer: hell, no!“This is total madness. I want to be clear: total madness,” the billionaire entrepreneur told Die Welt. “In my opinion, Germany should not only not shut down the nuclear power plants, it should reopen the ones that are shut down.”
The interview occurred just a couple of months after Russia had invaded Ukraine and Musk’s critique basically came in two parts: Germany’s decision to shun nuclear power would be bad for the environment and bad for geopolitical stability. “Listen, playtime is over, okay,” he said. “It’s a national security risk to shut these things down.”
It’s hard to disagree. Unfortunately, Germany did. Over the weekend the last remaining nuclear power plants in the country were switched off. To do this with Vladimir Putin's troops still in Ukraine is a case study in irrational fear trumping a proper appraisal of risk.
The energy trilemma that countries face is how to maintain energy security and reduce emissions while keeping costs down. Germany is failing on all three fronts.
The country’s environmentalists believe they have won a great victory; they may actually end up setting their cause back by a generation. A public backlash was starting to build even as the mothballs were being readied.
Thirty years ago only 3pc of the population was in favour of building new nuclear plants. A similar survey conducted by Der Spiegel last August found that 41pc of Germans were in favour of new plants and over two-thirds wanted the lives of existing plants to be extended by at least five years.
That's quite the turn-around. Perceptions about the risk of nuclear energy, especially in Germany, are strongly influenced by two accidents: Chernobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011.
The first accident resulted in a radioactive cloud heading towards Germany just as anti-nuclear sentiment was building in the country. The second sparked protests that persuaded Angela Merkel, a trained physicist who had previously been a vocal advocate of atomic power, to bring forward the phaseout of nuclear power plants from 2036 to 2022.
Nuclear power is far from perfect. It’s expensive to build new plants and there are still questions about what to do with the radioactive waste that is generated (although there have been significant technological advances). But it's not dangerous.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were tragic events and viscerally scary but the number of deaths they caused was a rounding error compared to those that are caused each and every year by fossil fuel emissions.
If you add up all the deaths caused by each energy source - including from air pollution and accidents throughout the supply chain - brown coal (the grubbiest kind) is responsible for 32.72 deaths per terawatt hour, while standard coal accounts for 24.62 deaths, according to Our World in Data.
By contrast, nuclear power is responsible for just 0.03 deaths per terawatt hour. That’s a touch more than solar (0.02 deaths) and a little less than wind (0.04 deaths).
One terawatt hour is roughly the amount of electricity consumed by 150,000 citizens in a developed country each year. So, another way of putting these numbers into context is to imagine two European towns each with 150,000 residents: Smogstadt gets all of its energy from coal while Atomville is entirely served by nuclear power.
In these hypothetical conurbations you would expect, on average, 25 people a year to die prematurely in Smogstadt; meanwhile there would be just one premature death every 33 years in Atomville (by which time Smogstadt’s overworked undertaker would have planted an extra 825 residents).
Now, imagine voluntarily deciding to move from Atomville to Sootstadt. And yet that is, in effect, what Germany has just done. Yes, the country is also rushing to expand its renewable energy capacity. But there’s no getting around the fact that, in the short term at least, the closure of nuclear power plants will result in more fossil fuels getting burnt.
Germany has had to recommission 20 coal-fired plants in the last 12 months alone to provide the necessary baseload power to help deal with fluctuations in wind and solar power production. Meanwhile, business leaders are warning that high energy prices in Germany risk forcing many companies – especially the kind of energy-intensive manufacturers for which the country is rightly famed – into bankruptcy.
And this is just the quantitative impact of the wrong-headed decision. Much harder to measure is the effect on geopolitics. Having started to wind down nuclear power after Fukushima, Germany was importing more than half of its natural gas from Russia before Putin ordered his troops to invade Ukraine.
The result was soaring energy prices and warnings about blackouts. But Europe’s dependency on Russian hydrocarbons is also likely to have figured in Putin’s calculations when deciding whether to march on Kyiv in the first place.
It can be no coincidence that central and eastern European nations have taken the far more pragmatic view that atomic power is the best way to ensure energy independence while also lowering carbon emissions.
Full post
Robert Bryce, 18 April 2023
Three federal court judges just rescued your gas stove and other gas-fired appliances from the nanny state.
Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the nation’s first ban on natural gas, put in place by the City of Berkeley in 2019, violates federal law. The three judges found that the city’s ordinance was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which prohibits the implementation of regulations that favor one type of fuel over another.
The first report I saw on the court’s ruling was here on Substack by my friend, Ed Ireland. There’s no doubt that the decision is a huge win for consumers, businesses, and energy security. Indeed, the ruling in California Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkeley, has ramifications that go beyond California and the Ninth Circuit. It should invalidate the dozens of gas bans that have been enacted across the country over the past four years. It may also mean that plans by federal authorities, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to ban, or restrict, the use of gas stoves, gas furnaces, and other gas-fired appliances, are kaput.
About 47 million American homes have gas stoves and lots of chefs, and consumers, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, like cooking with gas. The Department of Energy’s own numbers show that heating homes with gas is far cheaper than heating with electricity. Despite these facts, a group of lavishly funded activist groups have been pushing electrify everything mandates that would prohibit the use of gas in homes and businesses and require consumers to rely almost exclusively (including energy for electric vehicles) on our already-shaky electric grid. The electrify everything claque got a boost in January after Richard Trumka Jr., who sits on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, told a Bloomberg reporter that gas stoves are a hazard and that “any option is on the table,” including, presumably, a ban.
Trumka’s comments sparked a storm of criticism. Within hours, the White House issued a statement saying that President Joe Biden doesn’t support a ban on gas stoves.
Full post
Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the nation’s first ban on natural gas, put in place by the City of Berkeley in 2019, violates federal law. The three judges found that the city’s ordinance was preempted by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which prohibits the implementation of regulations that favor one type of fuel over another.
The first report I saw on the court’s ruling was here on Substack by my friend, Ed Ireland. There’s no doubt that the decision is a huge win for consumers, businesses, and energy security. Indeed, the ruling in California Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkeley, has ramifications that go beyond California and the Ninth Circuit. It should invalidate the dozens of gas bans that have been enacted across the country over the past four years. It may also mean that plans by federal authorities, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to ban, or restrict, the use of gas stoves, gas furnaces, and other gas-fired appliances, are kaput.
About 47 million American homes have gas stoves and lots of chefs, and consumers, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, like cooking with gas. The Department of Energy’s own numbers show that heating homes with gas is far cheaper than heating with electricity. Despite these facts, a group of lavishly funded activist groups have been pushing electrify everything mandates that would prohibit the use of gas in homes and businesses and require consumers to rely almost exclusively (including energy for electric vehicles) on our already-shaky electric grid. The electrify everything claque got a boost in January after Richard Trumka Jr., who sits on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, told a Bloomberg reporter that gas stoves are a hazard and that “any option is on the table,” including, presumably, a ban.
Trumka’s comments sparked a storm of criticism. Within hours, the White House issued a statement saying that President Joe Biden doesn’t support a ban on gas stoves.
Full post
9) Energy Socialism: California electric companies to charge households based on their income
American Experiment, 17 April 2023
American Experiment, 17 April 2023
According to the San Fransisco Chronicle, three major utility companies in California have proposed to charge their customers based on their household income.
The measure, which was drafted in response to a new California state law, would potentially save low-income families on their power bills while charging higher-earning families more.
The Plan
Under the plan, monthly bills would be broken into two parts: a fixed infrastructure charge, tiered by customer income level as required by the law, and an electricity use charge, which would vary based on consumption.
Under the proposals, the monthly fixed charge for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) customers would be as follows for a four-person household:
• Less than $28,000 per year: $15 fixed charge per month.
• Between $28,0000 and $69,000 per year: $30 fixed charge per month.
• Between $69,000 and $180,000 per year: $51 fixed charge per month.
• More than $180,000: $92 fixed charge per month.
The companies estimate that the electricity use charge, called a rate from hereafter, would initially fall by a third as more of the costs of providing electricity service are rolled into the fixed charges.
However, PG&E has also proposed a four-year plan that would increase utility rates by about 16 percent in year one — about $35.40 more each month for the average customer compared with 2022 — that state regulators are considering.
The Takeaway
California’s income-based fixed utility charges are a stunning departure from the classic tenets of utility rate-making, which stress that customer expenses should be just and reasonable and based on the cost of providing the service to that customer.
American Experiment has been a vocal critic of wind and solar mandates precisely because they lead to skyrocketing electricity prices that harm low-income families the most.
In a Substack article called California Screamin’ Robert Bryce details how more than a third of Californians are living in or near poverty, and electricity prices in California have increased three times faster than the national average since 2008, contributing to the enormous income inequality in the most “progressive” state in America.
Despite skyrocketing prices, California’s electric grid has grown increasingly unreliable. The state has shut down too many natural gas power plants since 2013 and has become overly reliant upon weather-dependent wind and solar generation and electricity imports from neighboring states.
Unfortunately, this strategy is doomed to fail because neighboring states are shutting down their reliable coal and natural gas plants, too, meaning they won’t have enough power to bail out the Golden State in the future.
Margaret Thatcher once quipped, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The problem with California-style electricity policy is that you eventually run out of other people’s electricity.
California appears to be racing to run out of both other people’s money and electricity, making its energy policy a shining example of what not to do.
Full post
The measure, which was drafted in response to a new California state law, would potentially save low-income families on their power bills while charging higher-earning families more.
The Plan
Under the plan, monthly bills would be broken into two parts: a fixed infrastructure charge, tiered by customer income level as required by the law, and an electricity use charge, which would vary based on consumption.
Under the proposals, the monthly fixed charge for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) customers would be as follows for a four-person household:
• Less than $28,000 per year: $15 fixed charge per month.
• Between $28,0000 and $69,000 per year: $30 fixed charge per month.
• Between $69,000 and $180,000 per year: $51 fixed charge per month.
• More than $180,000: $92 fixed charge per month.
The companies estimate that the electricity use charge, called a rate from hereafter, would initially fall by a third as more of the costs of providing electricity service are rolled into the fixed charges.
However, PG&E has also proposed a four-year plan that would increase utility rates by about 16 percent in year one — about $35.40 more each month for the average customer compared with 2022 — that state regulators are considering.
The Takeaway
California’s income-based fixed utility charges are a stunning departure from the classic tenets of utility rate-making, which stress that customer expenses should be just and reasonable and based on the cost of providing the service to that customer.
American Experiment has been a vocal critic of wind and solar mandates precisely because they lead to skyrocketing electricity prices that harm low-income families the most.
In a Substack article called California Screamin’ Robert Bryce details how more than a third of Californians are living in or near poverty, and electricity prices in California have increased three times faster than the national average since 2008, contributing to the enormous income inequality in the most “progressive” state in America.
Despite skyrocketing prices, California’s electric grid has grown increasingly unreliable. The state has shut down too many natural gas power plants since 2013 and has become overly reliant upon weather-dependent wind and solar generation and electricity imports from neighboring states.
Unfortunately, this strategy is doomed to fail because neighboring states are shutting down their reliable coal and natural gas plants, too, meaning they won’t have enough power to bail out the Golden State in the future.
Margaret Thatcher once quipped, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” The problem with California-style electricity policy is that you eventually run out of other people’s electricity.
California appears to be racing to run out of both other people’s money and electricity, making its energy policy a shining example of what not to do.
Full post
10) Biden's green energy plans pose national security risk, Pentagon warns
Fox News, 17 April 2023
Fox News, 17 April 2023
The Department of Defense (DoD) recently warned that the Biden administration's lofty offshore wind development goals could significantly impede naval military operations, Fox News Digital has confirmed.
The conflict, which pits President Biden's aggressive climate agenda against national security interests, was highlighted in an Oct. 6, 2022 report assembled by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, Bloomberg first reported on Monday. The documents were reportedly circulated with energy industry and state officials earlier this month and include maps highlighting sensitive military zones off the mid-Atlantic coast.
"The initial assessment performed by DoD found complicated compatibility challenges with wind turbines near Navy and Air Force training," Pentagon spokesperson Kelly Flynn told Fox News Digital. "The DoD continues to work with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, industry, and other stakeholders to identify the best locations for development."
"This discussion includes impacts to the environment, shipping, fishing, viewshed and military readiness and includes mitigation strategies to overcome the impacts," Flynn continued. "The DoD is committed to facilitate development while protecting national security, as we have done in every call area in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico."
The maps reportedly show massive acreage blocked off in federal waters near North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Overall, four offshore wind lease areas proposed by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) are characterized as "highly problematic" while another two are identified as "requiring further study," per Bloomberg.
The Pentagon, though, said assembling the report and the maps were an initial step in a process.
Full story
The conflict, which pits President Biden's aggressive climate agenda against national security interests, was highlighted in an Oct. 6, 2022 report assembled by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, Bloomberg first reported on Monday. The documents were reportedly circulated with energy industry and state officials earlier this month and include maps highlighting sensitive military zones off the mid-Atlantic coast.
"The initial assessment performed by DoD found complicated compatibility challenges with wind turbines near Navy and Air Force training," Pentagon spokesperson Kelly Flynn told Fox News Digital. "The DoD continues to work with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, industry, and other stakeholders to identify the best locations for development."
"This discussion includes impacts to the environment, shipping, fishing, viewshed and military readiness and includes mitigation strategies to overcome the impacts," Flynn continued. "The DoD is committed to facilitate development while protecting national security, as we have done in every call area in the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico."
The maps reportedly show massive acreage blocked off in federal waters near North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. Overall, four offshore wind lease areas proposed by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) are characterized as "highly problematic" while another two are identified as "requiring further study," per Bloomberg.
The Pentagon, though, said assembling the report and the maps were an initial step in a process.
Full story
11) Milton Ezrati: China clearly has chosen growth over climate
The Epoch Times, 15 April 2023
The Epoch Times, 15 April 2023
As with many other nations these days, a tension exists in China between climate and pollution considerations on the one hand and the desire for economic growth on the other. Though Beijing has assured the international community any number of times that it sincerely aims to decrease pollution and cut back on emissions of greenhouse gases, its actions have spoken louder than its words and show that China’s leadership has prioritized growth, and with the heavy use of coal no less.
When it comes to climate and pollution, Beijing has said all the right things. In November 2021, Chinese leader Xi Jinping with considerable fanfare assured the United Nations (U.N.) that his country would reach complete carbon neutrality by 2060. At the same time, he pledged that China would significantly reduce coal consumption by 2026–30, though he failed to quantify exactly what he considered significant. His assurances meant a lot to those battling climate change because China is the single biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, accounting for more than one-quarter of all global emissions, roughly twice the amount from the second largest emitter, the United States.
Also burnishing China’s image on the climate front is its leading position as a manufacturer of windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicles (EVs). And indeed, China has made significant gains in these areas. In 2022, its output of solar panels totaled an estimated 340m kilowatts of capacity, half again more than in 2021. It added a record 125 GW in solar and wind capacity in 2022, about two-thirds solar. Wind, solar, nuclear, and hydropower increased their share of all energy consumption some 0.4 percentage points to 25.9 percent of the total. Of course, much of the wind and solar production is for export and reflects little on domestic Chinese emissions, but China still wins plaudits for supporting climate efforts globally, though it should be clear that the income from the sale of these products is at least as important to Chinese industry as is its use in controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
Other news, however, tells a much less accommodating climate picture. Emissions, for instance, rose in 2022 some 2.2 percent, a remarkable jump considering that zero-COVID lockdowns kept overall real growth to a slow 3.0 percent. The implication is that for all the development of wind, solar, and other clean energy sources, the Chinese economy’s carbon intensity shrank a mere 0.8 percent, hardly consistent with the lofty goals presented to the U.N. in 2021.
Still more troubling from a climate perspective is China’s ongoing surge in the construction of coal-powered electric generating plants. In a recent interview, analysts at the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that in the last year, China has on average granted permits for two new such power plants a week. That is more than six times the total of the rest of the world combined and exceeds China’s previous building surge in 2015 when Beijing, to stimulate economic activity, granted local governments authority to borrow for just such a purpose.
Last year in China, coal consumption rose 4.3 percent despite the slow pace of overall economic growth. The increased use of coal occurred even as oil consumption fell 3.1 percent and natural gas use fell 1.2 percent. Despite the rise in clean energy’s contribution to the total, coal still generated over 56 percent of China’s electricity. It is then not surprising that of the 339 Chinese cities tested for air quality, more than one-third failed.
Against this picture, it is hard to believe that Beijing is sincere about its emissions and clean air goals. There is no suggestion here that China’s leadership is or was lying, though it has lied with alacrity in the past. Rather, this situation is simply China’s response to a reality that has unfolded since Xi made his promises in 2021.
Full post
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment