In this newsletter:
1) 2023: Global temperature, statistics and hot air
Net Zero Watch, 20 December 2023
2) Winning! EU Commission postpones heat pump plan until after the EU elections
Renewable Energy Magazine, 20 December 2023
3) EU off track for hitting climate and renewable energy goals
Bloomberg, 18 December 2023
4) COP28: India did not yield to pressure on fossil fuels, Environment minister says
Press Trust of India, 19 December 2023
5) EV and battery startups at risk of running out of cash
The Wall Street Journal, 19 December 2023
6) Audi hits brakes on EV rollout as enthusiasm wanes
The Daily Telegraph, 18 December 2023
7) Scottish battery factory goes bust in fresh blow to UK’s net zero industry
The Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2023
8) China-tied group is quietly fueling US-based climate initiatives: tax filings
Fox News, 18 December 2023
9) Neil Record: What could happen if we just stopped oil? Six billion might die
The Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2023
10) Brendan O'Neill: Why the green elites hate Christmas
Spiked, 19 December 2023
11) Paul Driessen: Defund the United Nations’ climate police
The Washington Times, 19 December 2023
Full details:
1) 2023: Global temperature, statistics and hot air
Net Zero Watch, 20 December 2023
Dr David Whitehouse, Science editor
While 2023 will be the warmest year of the instrumental era, nobody knows why or what it means for the future of climate trends.
Net Zero Watch, 20 December 2023
Dr David Whitehouse, Science editor
While 2023 will be the warmest year of the instrumental era, nobody knows why or what it means for the future of climate trends.
As can be seen from the year-to-date graph from NOAA below, 2023 started off with non-exceptional global temperature average – but from June onwards all months broke global records. Such was the cooler start to the year that it was only in September that it became apparent that 2023 could be the warmest year, surpassing the previous holder – 2016 – another El Nino year.
Clearly El Nino has a lot to do with it, coming after an unusual three years of La Nina events that tend to absorb heat in the oceans, releasing it in a subsequent El Nino, as has now happened. So as far as this represents “accelerating climate change” (as NOAA contends) it is debatable as it is mostly a delayed heat distribution, but time will tell.
It is pertinent to say that climate scientists were a little puzzled at this year’s sudden temperature surge as they cannot quite explain it: their models neither predict it nor are they able to account for the surprise. Other factors have contributed to it including the ongoing lifting of the aerosol pollution, especially by China, and the use of new formula ship fuels. The Hunga Tonga explosion that injected water vapour into the stratosphere might have had an effect, though probably a minor one. The Sun reaching the peak of the solar cycle will also have had a small influence.
All this means that 2024 could be another record year if the El Nino progresses, but 2025 will probably see global temperatures fall somewhat. Some have speculated that this will make 2024 the first year to surpass the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C threshold, although a single year is not indicative of a long term trend.
But how would we know we have passed this threshold?
Redefining Climate
Every now and then climate scientists give in to one of their greatest temptations – which is to substitute models for reality and think they are the same.
The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced in 1934 by the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
Back in 2018 we reported that in its 1.5°C report the IPCC had changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it was the 30 years centred on the present. There are some obvious problems with this. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years!
This IPCC trick has now resurfaced. The latest example concerns the predicted surpassing of the 1.5°C limit above pre-industrial temperature. Because of the considerable interannual variability of global temperature records, such an occurrence would inevitably only be recognised some years afterwards. For some this is not good enough and the proposed solution is to side-line empirical temperature data by mixing it with the output of speculative climate models. Welcome to model land, where the rules and reality are different.
This is where the UK Met Office comes in with a highly ingenious proposition. They are suggesting to mix ten years of past temperature data with ten years of projected temperatures to establish the climate we are currently experiencing. Bingo!
There are, of course, problems with this shrewd ploy, not least the possibility of another global temperature pause or the skewing of the trends due to the up and downs of El Ninos.The Met Office’s cunning plan is part of a trend we have mentioned before – making the ‘climate’ period shorter and the ‘weather’ longer.
What was once defined as short-term weather is now called climate, ignoring the 30 year definition of climate that puts weather events into their statistical context. And of course each annual global temperature average, even those significantly influenced by a strong El Nino or La Nina, has turned into a climatic event because ocean cycles themselves have now become near-term climate events.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@netzerowatch.com
2) Winning! EU Commission postpones heat pump plan until after the EU elections
Renewable Energy Magazine, 20 December 2023
It is pertinent to say that climate scientists were a little puzzled at this year’s sudden temperature surge as they cannot quite explain it: their models neither predict it nor are they able to account for the surprise. Other factors have contributed to it including the ongoing lifting of the aerosol pollution, especially by China, and the use of new formula ship fuels. The Hunga Tonga explosion that injected water vapour into the stratosphere might have had an effect, though probably a minor one. The Sun reaching the peak of the solar cycle will also have had a small influence.
All this means that 2024 could be another record year if the El Nino progresses, but 2025 will probably see global temperatures fall somewhat. Some have speculated that this will make 2024 the first year to surpass the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C threshold, although a single year is not indicative of a long term trend.
But how would we know we have passed this threshold?
Redefining Climate
Every now and then climate scientists give in to one of their greatest temptations – which is to substitute models for reality and think they are the same.
The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced in 1934 by the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
Back in 2018 we reported that in its 1.5°C report the IPCC had changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it was the 30 years centred on the present. There are some obvious problems with this. We have observational temperature data for the past 15 years but, of course, none for the next 15 years!
This IPCC trick has now resurfaced. The latest example concerns the predicted surpassing of the 1.5°C limit above pre-industrial temperature. Because of the considerable interannual variability of global temperature records, such an occurrence would inevitably only be recognised some years afterwards. For some this is not good enough and the proposed solution is to side-line empirical temperature data by mixing it with the output of speculative climate models. Welcome to model land, where the rules and reality are different.
This is where the UK Met Office comes in with a highly ingenious proposition. They are suggesting to mix ten years of past temperature data with ten years of projected temperatures to establish the climate we are currently experiencing. Bingo!
There are, of course, problems with this shrewd ploy, not least the possibility of another global temperature pause or the skewing of the trends due to the up and downs of El Ninos.The Met Office’s cunning plan is part of a trend we have mentioned before – making the ‘climate’ period shorter and the ‘weather’ longer.
What was once defined as short-term weather is now called climate, ignoring the 30 year definition of climate that puts weather events into their statistical context. And of course each annual global temperature average, even those significantly influenced by a strong El Nino or La Nina, has turned into a climatic event because ocean cycles themselves have now become near-term climate events.
Feedback: david.whitehouse@netzerowatch.com
2) Winning! EU Commission postpones heat pump plan until after the EU elections
Renewable Energy Magazine, 20 December 2023
The European Commission has postponed its Heat Pump Action Plan until after the EU elections, despite repeated assurances that the plan would be released in early 2024.
The original aim was to launch the plan as soon as the revised Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) law was finalised. That finalisation is a step closer today, with the Council’s adoption of the directive. However, the European Commission has now decided to postpone the launch of the Heat Pump Action Plan until after the EU elections, when a new Commission will be in place. This may in turn impose a significant delay in the publication of the plan.
Heat pump sales have fallen this year, causing the sector to call for strong policy support in the form of ambitious targets and a comprehensive action plan. Manufacturers have also invested over 7 billion euros in production capacity and training of installers, building on the key role given to heat pumps in the Green Deal, Fit for 55°C package, and in REPowerEU.
The decision to delay the launch of the Heat Pump Action Plan has drawn a strong reaction from the European Heat Pump Association (EHPA) in particular.
Full story
3) EU off track for hitting climate and renewable energy goals
Bloomberg, 18 December 2023
The original aim was to launch the plan as soon as the revised Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) law was finalised. That finalisation is a step closer today, with the Council’s adoption of the directive. However, the European Commission has now decided to postpone the launch of the Heat Pump Action Plan until after the EU elections, when a new Commission will be in place. This may in turn impose a significant delay in the publication of the plan.
Heat pump sales have fallen this year, causing the sector to call for strong policy support in the form of ambitious targets and a comprehensive action plan. Manufacturers have also invested over 7 billion euros in production capacity and training of installers, building on the key role given to heat pumps in the Green Deal, Fit for 55°C package, and in REPowerEU.
The decision to delay the launch of the Heat Pump Action Plan has drawn a strong reaction from the European Heat Pump Association (EHPA) in particular.
Full story
3) EU off track for hitting climate and renewable energy goals
Bloomberg, 18 December 2023
European Union governments must step up efforts to meet the bloc’s binding goal of reducing emissions by at least 55% this decade, by accelerating the phase-out of fossil fuels and boosting the competitiveness of the clean energy sector in the region.
Current measures in energy and climate plans drafted by the EU states would lead to a 51% cut in greenhouse gases, with members lagging behind on renewables deployments and energy savings, according to an assessment published by the European Commission on Monday. The 2030 goal is part of the EU’s ambitious strategy to lead the global fight against climate change and zero out emissions by the middle of the century.
“It is clear we need stronger commitments in the final plans to put us firmly on the right track to climate neutrality, build resilience to climate impacts and to capitalize on the gains that come from the climate and energy transition,” EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said in a statement.
The EU’s unprecedented clean shift comes as the 27-nation bloc is grappling with an energy crisis following a cut in gas supplies by Russia amid its invasion of Ukraine. At the same, increasing competition from the US and China is putting clean energy value chains in Europe under pressure, sparking calls from businesses for more funding.
Full story
4) COP28: India did not yield to pressure on fossil fuels, Environment minister says
Press Trust of India, 19 December 2023
Current measures in energy and climate plans drafted by the EU states would lead to a 51% cut in greenhouse gases, with members lagging behind on renewables deployments and energy savings, according to an assessment published by the European Commission on Monday. The 2030 goal is part of the EU’s ambitious strategy to lead the global fight against climate change and zero out emissions by the middle of the century.
“It is clear we need stronger commitments in the final plans to put us firmly on the right track to climate neutrality, build resilience to climate impacts and to capitalize on the gains that come from the climate and energy transition,” EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said in a statement.
The EU’s unprecedented clean shift comes as the 27-nation bloc is grappling with an energy crisis following a cut in gas supplies by Russia amid its invasion of Ukraine. At the same, increasing competition from the US and China is putting clean energy value chains in Europe under pressure, sparking calls from businesses for more funding.
Full story
4) COP28: India did not yield to pressure on fossil fuels, Environment minister says
Press Trust of India, 19 December 2023
New Delhi, Dec 19 (PTI) India did not accede to the pressure from developed countries on the issue of fossil fuels at the UN climate conference in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav said on Tuesday.
Responding to questions at a press conference here, he also said India is committed to meeting the energy needs of its people and will also have to rely on coal power until it achieves developed country status.
Yadav said the country cannot meet the energy needs of its people by just "importing oil and gas".
"While we are increasing our renewable capacity, we will also have to rely on coal power until we achieve the objective of a developed India," he said.
India relies on coal for about 70 per cent of its power generation and aims to add 17 gigawatts of coal-based power generation capacity in the next 16 months.
Responding to a question from PTI, Yadav said India "strongly resisted" the rich nations' call for limitations on new and unabated coal power generation. "We said you cannot dictate or tie up any country."
Around 40 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from coal, with oil and gas accounting for the remaining percentage.
Developing countries, including India, pushed rich nations to take the lead in climate action and "that's why the climate conference in Dubai got extended", Yadav said.
COP28 outcome revealed a "softening" of the language on developed countries taking the lead in moving away from fossil fuels, he said.
He said India accounts for 17 per cent of the global population but its contribution to global carbon emissions is just four per cent. "Poverty eradication is a priority for many nations. So, we did not give in to the pressure from developed countries (to stop using fossil fuels)," Yadav said.
The minister said developed nations, which have taken up a large part of the carbon budget for 1.5 degrees Celsius (since the start of the industrial revolution) and spent it on their own development, are required to provide finance and technological support to developing countries to help them combat climate change.
"We have different starting points. Countries that developed first, taking up a large part of the carbon budget in the process, should also take the lead in combating climate change.
"But they are pressuring developing nations to end the use of fossil fuels. We did not accept it (at COP28). We said efforts to (limit temperature rise to) 1.5 degrees Celsius should be seen in light of national circumstances and should adhere to (the principles of) equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
These principles acknowledge that countries' efforts to combat climate change should be considered in light of their contributions to total emissions. They also stress that wealthier nations should bear primary responsibilities due to their substantial historical emissions.
Full story
5) EV and battery startups at risk of running out of cash
The Wall Street Journal, 19 December 2023
Responding to questions at a press conference here, he also said India is committed to meeting the energy needs of its people and will also have to rely on coal power until it achieves developed country status.
Yadav said the country cannot meet the energy needs of its people by just "importing oil and gas".
"While we are increasing our renewable capacity, we will also have to rely on coal power until we achieve the objective of a developed India," he said.
India relies on coal for about 70 per cent of its power generation and aims to add 17 gigawatts of coal-based power generation capacity in the next 16 months.
Responding to a question from PTI, Yadav said India "strongly resisted" the rich nations' call for limitations on new and unabated coal power generation. "We said you cannot dictate or tie up any country."
Around 40 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions stem from coal, with oil and gas accounting for the remaining percentage.
Developing countries, including India, pushed rich nations to take the lead in climate action and "that's why the climate conference in Dubai got extended", Yadav said.
COP28 outcome revealed a "softening" of the language on developed countries taking the lead in moving away from fossil fuels, he said.
He said India accounts for 17 per cent of the global population but its contribution to global carbon emissions is just four per cent. "Poverty eradication is a priority for many nations. So, we did not give in to the pressure from developed countries (to stop using fossil fuels)," Yadav said.
The minister said developed nations, which have taken up a large part of the carbon budget for 1.5 degrees Celsius (since the start of the industrial revolution) and spent it on their own development, are required to provide finance and technological support to developing countries to help them combat climate change.
"We have different starting points. Countries that developed first, taking up a large part of the carbon budget in the process, should also take the lead in combating climate change.
"But they are pressuring developing nations to end the use of fossil fuels. We did not accept it (at COP28). We said efforts to (limit temperature rise to) 1.5 degrees Celsius should be seen in light of national circumstances and should adhere to (the principles of) equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."
These principles acknowledge that countries' efforts to combat climate change should be considered in light of their contributions to total emissions. They also stress that wealthier nations should bear primary responsibilities due to their substantial historical emissions.
Full story
5) EV and battery startups at risk of running out of cash
The Wall Street Journal, 19 December 2023
Electric-vehicle startups were flying high just a few years ago. Now many are focused on survival.
At least 18 EV and battery startups that went public in recent years were at risk of running out of cash by the end of 2024 as of their most recent filings, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. They include companies such as Nikola NKLA 13.38%increase; green up pointing triangle and Fisker FSR -2.47%decrease; red down pointing triangle, which attracted investors with bold promises to transform the industry and fight climate change with their electric trucks and SUVs.
That was before they stumbled amid rising costs and manufacturing problems.
Three companies — Lordstown Motors , Proterra and Electric Last Mile Solutions — have filed for bankruptcy. Battery maker Romeo Power and charging firm Volta have been sold at a fraction of their valuations when they went public. Several of those remaining say they are working to reduce costs and have since raised capital.
The median stock among the companies that the Journal evaluated is down more than 80% from its market debut, and even further from its peak. The slide has wiped out tens of billions of dollars in market value in just a couple of years.
“It was by far the most insane bubble I have ever seen,” said Gavin Baker, chief investment officer at Atreides Management.
Electric-vehicle startups' cash on hand as of their most recent quarterly reports, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Many say they've taken steps to conserve or raise cash.
Nearly all of the struggling companies went public through special-purpose acquisition companies. SPACs are alternatives to traditional initial public offerings that surged in popularity during the pandemic. Unlike IPOs, they let startups make unchecked projections about how quickly they could grow.
The rapid change in fortunes for EV startups highlights the risks of investing in the industry, which continues to shift in unexpected ways. Demand is growing steadily, but hasn’t exploded as many startups and investors predicted. Tesla and other market leaders are also cutting prices to win customers, pressuring newcomers that are still struggling to get production started.
Full story
6) Audi hits brakes on EV rollout as enthusiasm wanes
The Daily Telegraph, 18 December 2023
At least 18 EV and battery startups that went public in recent years were at risk of running out of cash by the end of 2024 as of their most recent filings, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. They include companies such as Nikola NKLA 13.38%increase; green up pointing triangle and Fisker FSR -2.47%decrease; red down pointing triangle, which attracted investors with bold promises to transform the industry and fight climate change with their electric trucks and SUVs.
That was before they stumbled amid rising costs and manufacturing problems.
Three companies — Lordstown Motors , Proterra and Electric Last Mile Solutions — have filed for bankruptcy. Battery maker Romeo Power and charging firm Volta have been sold at a fraction of their valuations when they went public. Several of those remaining say they are working to reduce costs and have since raised capital.
The median stock among the companies that the Journal evaluated is down more than 80% from its market debut, and even further from its peak. The slide has wiped out tens of billions of dollars in market value in just a couple of years.
“It was by far the most insane bubble I have ever seen,” said Gavin Baker, chief investment officer at Atreides Management.
Electric-vehicle startups' cash on hand as of their most recent quarterly reports, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Many say they've taken steps to conserve or raise cash.
Nearly all of the struggling companies went public through special-purpose acquisition companies. SPACs are alternatives to traditional initial public offerings that surged in popularity during the pandemic. Unlike IPOs, they let startups make unchecked projections about how quickly they could grow.
The rapid change in fortunes for EV startups highlights the risks of investing in the industry, which continues to shift in unexpected ways. Demand is growing steadily, but hasn’t exploded as many startups and investors predicted. Tesla and other market leaders are also cutting prices to win customers, pressuring newcomers that are still struggling to get production started.
Full story
6) Audi hits brakes on EV rollout as enthusiasm wanes
The Daily Telegraph, 18 December 2023
Gernot Döllner, the boss of the Volkswagen-owned brand, said that he wants to avoid flooding dealerships and factories with the vehicles as sales slow.
“The advantage of EVs (electric vehicles) is becoming visible to consumers step by step,” Mr Döllner told Bloomberg News.
Official forecasts for electric car take-up in the UK were slashed by almost half last month. Sales of new battery-powered cars were expected to grow steadily until they accounted for 67pc of the market by 2027, under a prediction issued in March.
But that figure has now been revised down to just 38pc by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which said the take-up of EVs has been slowing.
Full story
7) Scottish battery factory goes bust in fresh blow to UK’s net zero industry
The Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2023
AMTE Power, a high-performance battery developer, has called in administrators in a fresh blow to Britain’s net zero industry.
The company warned in the summer that it was in financial trouble and had days to find a new backer or help from existing shareholders.
An investor pulled the plug on fresh funding after plans to build a new plant in Dundee were scrapped.
AMTE said in a stock market notice: “The board has no other options to secure finance in the time available and has therefore concluded that the company has insufficient funds to continue trading.”
It said it appointed FRP Advisory as administrator to find a buyer and trading of its shares are suspended.
Full story
8) China-tied group is quietly fueling US-based climate initiatives: tax filings
Fox News, 18 December 2023
The company warned in the summer that it was in financial trouble and had days to find a new backer or help from existing shareholders.
An investor pulled the plug on fresh funding after plans to build a new plant in Dundee were scrapped.
AMTE said in a stock market notice: “The board has no other options to secure finance in the time available and has therefore concluded that the company has insufficient funds to continue trading.”
It said it appointed FRP Advisory as administrator to find a buyer and trading of its shares are suspended.
Full story
8) China-tied group is quietly fueling US-based climate initiatives: tax filings
Fox News, 18 December 2023
'Environmentalists fueled by China are promoting policies that would increase our dependence on China': energy expert
A climate-focused nonprofit with significant operations in Beijing has wired millions of dollars to fund climate initiatives and environmental groups in the U.S., according to tax filings first obtained by Fox News Digital.
While the Energy Foundation's financial filings indicate that the group is technically headquartered in San Francisco, a Fox News Digital review determined that the majority of its operations are conducted in China with a staff that boasts extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its recently filed tax form show the group, which refers to itself as "Energy Foundation China," contributed $3.8 million to initiatives in the U.S. like phasing out coal and electrifying the transportation sector.
"The Energy Foundation's ties to China are both extremely disturbing and reprehensible," Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "These environmental organizations, the recipients of this money, are, in essence, sacrificing our national security and empowering China."
"We are the richest energy nation in the world with respect to coal, oil and natural gas," he continued. "And yet the Biden administration and the environmentalists fueled by China are promoting policies that would increase our dependence on China, which controls all the minerals and materials needed for batteries and wind and solar, and curtail our production of oil and gas here at home."
Full story
See also: Patricia Adams: The Red and the Green: China's Useful Idiots (pdf)
9) Neil Record: What could happen if we just stopped oil? Six billion might die
The Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2023
A climate-focused nonprofit with significant operations in Beijing has wired millions of dollars to fund climate initiatives and environmental groups in the U.S., according to tax filings first obtained by Fox News Digital.
While the Energy Foundation's financial filings indicate that the group is technically headquartered in San Francisco, a Fox News Digital review determined that the majority of its operations are conducted in China with a staff that boasts extensive ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its recently filed tax form show the group, which refers to itself as "Energy Foundation China," contributed $3.8 million to initiatives in the U.S. like phasing out coal and electrifying the transportation sector.
"The Energy Foundation's ties to China are both extremely disturbing and reprehensible," Tom Pyle, the president of the Institute for Energy Research, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "These environmental organizations, the recipients of this money, are, in essence, sacrificing our national security and empowering China."
"We are the richest energy nation in the world with respect to coal, oil and natural gas," he continued. "And yet the Biden administration and the environmentalists fueled by China are promoting policies that would increase our dependence on China, which controls all the minerals and materials needed for batteries and wind and solar, and curtail our production of oil and gas here at home."
Full story
See also: Patricia Adams: The Red and the Green: China's Useful Idiots (pdf)
9) Neil Record: What could happen if we just stopped oil? Six billion might die
The Daily Telegraph, 19 December 2023
It's difficult to see how an immediate ban on fossil fuels will allow civilisation to continue and flourish
Many of us have been exasperated by the antics of Just Stop Oil protesters. Now, I believe that these are well-meaning and committed to their cause and I am sure that they think that they are trying to save the planet in the best way they can think of – gain publicity, get people talking and influence politicians.
But what would happen if we literally just stopped oil tomorrow and did without the natural resources on which the world, its economies and populations depend? The answer: most likely six billion people would die within a year.
I am going to assume the “oil” in Just Stop Oil means fossil fuels – so oil, gas and coal. I am also going to assume that we have today’s technological knowledge and infrastructure, so we are talking about stopping fossil fuels now, not at some unspecified time in the future.
Day 1 – no more mining of coal; the world’s oil wells shut down; the world’s gas fields likewise. The first to feel the change would be gas users.
Gas stocks held above ground are typically not that high. So the UK would quite quickly, say in 10 or 15 days, have to turn off its gas distribution system as it would be unable to maintain pressure.
This would mean in turn that the domestic supply would be shut down too – gas would stop flowing, and some 21 million households (74pc of the population) would no longer have heating, hot water, and cooking facilities. In their panic, people might turn to electricity for their cooking and heating, but wait…
The UK electricity grid relies on natural gas as its “buffer” energy source. Every day, demand varies according to consumer demand, and the other main energy supplier, renewables, are highly variable and can only power the grid when gas is picking up the lion’s share of the gap between their output and consumer demand.
So the moment that the main gas distribution system is de-pressurised, the grid-balancing system fails and power cuts ensue.
It is impossible to gauge how extensive these power cuts would be, but the grid would be so seriously compromised, possibly fatally, that they may be widespread and permanent.
Electricity demand would have rocketed through the switch to electric space heating, cooking and water-heating, and so it seems very likely that the sudden excess demand would be undeliverable, and therefore that the grid would spiral into uncontrollability.
No electricity means no communication systems – no mobiles, no TV, and no running water. With no power and no heating, vulnerable people start to die.
Initially just the elderly in their own homes, then in hospitals when the diesel back-up generators run out of fuel, but then new existential problems emerge for ordinary people in the form of food availability and distribution.
Day 25 – I’m probably being generous with the timing here, but diesel and petrol are likely to have run out by day 25. This means that food distribution would fail, and so the population, most of which are entirely dependent on bought food, begin to starve.
In dire national emergencies, international help is often forthcoming, but in this case, this scenario is taking place, in largely identical ways and timing, across the developed and developing world. Only isolated rural communities, agriculturally self-sufficient, would be relatively unaffected. So no international rescue mission.
Day 50 – in the urban world, many people would be near death from starvation. In the 50 days since the ending of fossil fuel supply, law and order would have broken down, and I suspect that mass conflict and slaughter would have been taking place with the increasingly desperate search for the means of survival.
But disease would be on the rampage too, with no power, no water supply and no sewage flow, so cholera, dysentery and all the other Victorian diseases of crowding would take over.
Day 100 – just three months or so since the world just stopped oil – my guess is that around half of the world’s population (say four billion people) would be dead. The first to die would be the urban poor; then the middle and upper classes, with money and status becoming increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time.
The survivors would be largely rural, able to live off local agricultural produce, or live off dwindling food stocks.
Full story
10) Brendan O'Neill: Why the green elites hate Christmas
Spiked, 19 December 2023
Many of us have been exasperated by the antics of Just Stop Oil protesters. Now, I believe that these are well-meaning and committed to their cause and I am sure that they think that they are trying to save the planet in the best way they can think of – gain publicity, get people talking and influence politicians.
But what would happen if we literally just stopped oil tomorrow and did without the natural resources on which the world, its economies and populations depend? The answer: most likely six billion people would die within a year.
I am going to assume the “oil” in Just Stop Oil means fossil fuels – so oil, gas and coal. I am also going to assume that we have today’s technological knowledge and infrastructure, so we are talking about stopping fossil fuels now, not at some unspecified time in the future.
Day 1 – no more mining of coal; the world’s oil wells shut down; the world’s gas fields likewise. The first to feel the change would be gas users.
Gas stocks held above ground are typically not that high. So the UK would quite quickly, say in 10 or 15 days, have to turn off its gas distribution system as it would be unable to maintain pressure.
This would mean in turn that the domestic supply would be shut down too – gas would stop flowing, and some 21 million households (74pc of the population) would no longer have heating, hot water, and cooking facilities. In their panic, people might turn to electricity for their cooking and heating, but wait…
The UK electricity grid relies on natural gas as its “buffer” energy source. Every day, demand varies according to consumer demand, and the other main energy supplier, renewables, are highly variable and can only power the grid when gas is picking up the lion’s share of the gap between their output and consumer demand.
So the moment that the main gas distribution system is de-pressurised, the grid-balancing system fails and power cuts ensue.
It is impossible to gauge how extensive these power cuts would be, but the grid would be so seriously compromised, possibly fatally, that they may be widespread and permanent.
Electricity demand would have rocketed through the switch to electric space heating, cooking and water-heating, and so it seems very likely that the sudden excess demand would be undeliverable, and therefore that the grid would spiral into uncontrollability.
No electricity means no communication systems – no mobiles, no TV, and no running water. With no power and no heating, vulnerable people start to die.
Initially just the elderly in their own homes, then in hospitals when the diesel back-up generators run out of fuel, but then new existential problems emerge for ordinary people in the form of food availability and distribution.
Day 25 – I’m probably being generous with the timing here, but diesel and petrol are likely to have run out by day 25. This means that food distribution would fail, and so the population, most of which are entirely dependent on bought food, begin to starve.
In dire national emergencies, international help is often forthcoming, but in this case, this scenario is taking place, in largely identical ways and timing, across the developed and developing world. Only isolated rural communities, agriculturally self-sufficient, would be relatively unaffected. So no international rescue mission.
Day 50 – in the urban world, many people would be near death from starvation. In the 50 days since the ending of fossil fuel supply, law and order would have broken down, and I suspect that mass conflict and slaughter would have been taking place with the increasingly desperate search for the means of survival.
But disease would be on the rampage too, with no power, no water supply and no sewage flow, so cholera, dysentery and all the other Victorian diseases of crowding would take over.
Day 100 – just three months or so since the world just stopped oil – my guess is that around half of the world’s population (say four billion people) would be dead. The first to die would be the urban poor; then the middle and upper classes, with money and status becoming increasingly irrelevant with the passage of time.
The survivors would be largely rural, able to live off local agricultural produce, or live off dwindling food stocks.
Full story
10) Brendan O'Neill: Why the green elites hate Christmas
Spiked, 19 December 2023
Ignore the doom-mongers, the killjoys, the snobs. Don’t let your week of freedom be clouded by the wailing of upper-class neurotics who think the world will end if we get to do what we want. Instead, eat, drink and – the greatest rebellion of all – be merry.
Not content with blocking roads and ruining the snooker, now Just Stop Oil’s glum toffs are coming for Christmas. Nothing horrifies plummy greens more than the thought of millions of plebs buying gifts, getting sloshed and eating dead birds. So they intend to do something about it. They’ll be spray-painting Christmas trees and singing ‘climate Christmas carols’. Then there’s the ace up their sleeve. Their greatest act of torment against the British public yet. A Christmas single.
It’s called ‘We Tried’. The singer is Louise Harris. You remember her – she’s the eco-zealot who wept on a motorway gantry during a JSO stunt. ‘I’m here because I don’t have a future!’, she blubbed. ‘Why does it take young people like me up on a fucking gantry on the M25 for you to listen?!’, she wailed. Oh sweetheart, we’re still not listening. Now the Cambridge grad is turning on the waterworks once more as she warbles: ‘Take me where the birds still fly / Cos smoke fills up our sky.’ Deep.
‘This song woke me up’, says Brian Eno, making it sound like it interrupted his afternoon nap. It’s a ‘fucking horrific, terrifying and tragic’ song and you must ‘listen to it’, says naturalist fruitcake Chris Packham. For five long, mournful minutes Ms Harris sings and sobs against a backdrop of factories, war and natural disasters. It’s a deathly ballad, the bastard child of Chris de Burgh and Greta Thunberg. ‘Just Stop Singing!’, as a headline in the Daily Mail aptly puts it.
JSO hopes it will be the Christmas No1. Fat chance. That spot is Shane MacGowan’s. What’s more, people don’t take kindly to being lectured by the emotionally incontinent upper classes during the season to be jolly. Ms Harris must know this. In 2022, she invaded the pitch when Spurs were playing West Ham, whereupon legions of fans pelted her with drinks. She fled to Facebook to boohoo about being ‘hated by the majority of the general public’. There’s an easy fix for that, Louise: don’t interrupt the football and don’t release rubbish singles.
There’s something about Christmas that always brings out the well-off eco-aware in a rash. For years the right-on have bemoaned the waste and indulgence of the holiday season. ‘[F]or God’s sake stop trashing the planet’ with your ‘junk’ gifts, said Guardian Scrooge George Monbiot a decade ago. We’ve had Buy Nothing Christmas, an outgrowth of Buy Nothing Day, which encouraged us to ‘bypass the tinsel, the tree and the tat’ and ‘go cold turkey on consumerism’ (boom boom). ‘All I want for Christmas is a lower rate of consumption’, say headlines in the pompous press. Just Stop Oil’s party-pooping is only the latest expression of this weird aristocratic derision for Christmas.
JSO has already sang climate carols outside Keir Starmer’s house. ‘On the first day of Christmas, Keir Starmer gave to me / Genocide from the North Sea’, the loons intoned, because apparently Sir Keir isn’t sufficiently committed to phasing out oil-pumping in Scotland. ‘All I want for Christmas is for oil-rig workers to lose their jobs’ would have been a more honest lyric. Just Stop Oil’s German wing has defiled Christmas trees with JSO’s trademark orange paint. Furious Christmas shoppers in Strasbourg rose up against the paint-splattering grinches, leading to one of my favorite headlines of the year: ‘Eco protesters manhandled by angry public after spraying Xmas market tree orange.’
There’s a powerful whiff of snobbery to this Christmasphobia. The annual handwringing over holiday ‘waste’ feels a lot like ‘wealthy leftists talking down to the working class about their life choices’, wrote Simon Copland a few years ago. Indeed. From the pulpit of the New York Times comment pages to the weepy pleas of apocalyptic greens, every Christmas the well-off reprimand workers for eating, drinking and spending too much. In the words of a writer for the NYT, ‘Between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, Americans produce a colossal amount of waste’, causing ‘landfills [to] swell beyond all reason’, and making ‘whales starve because of the plastic they have consumed’. Oh, stop it! Can we not have one week off from the finger-wagging?
Full post
11) Paul Driessen: Defund the United Nations’ climate police
The Washington Times, 19 December 2023
Poor and developing countries now recognize that these climate warriors aren’t there to protect them or “save the planet.”
This year’s U.N. Climate Change Conference, known as COP-28, just sputtered to a predictable close. In many ways, it was much like previous gatherings.
The original goal was to determine what effects human activities, especially fossil-fuel use, might have on Earth’s climate. But that quickly mutated into an inquisition grounded in the absurd notion that those activities were the only factor in climate change. It then mutated even more grotesquely into demands that humanity quickly eliminate all fossil fuels — 80% of the world’s energy — despite the many negative consequences.
Every successive conference has exerted greater pressure on developed countries to abandon the oil, natural gas and coal that make modern economies, health, living standards and essential products possible; on poor countries to never use those fuels in the first place; and on all nations to rely on wind and solar energy that have never proved they can be the primary power source for even a small village.
COP-28 was supposed to formalize solid commitments by all countries to eliminate fossil-fuel use by 2050 and by wealthy nations to commit to trillions of dollars in climate “reparation” and “adaptation” payments to poor countries allegedly victimized by rich countries’ use of fossil fuels.
Fortunately, COP-28 turned out to be unlike previous conferences.
It was held in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates under the auspices of a government committed to producing, exporting and consuming more oil and natural gas far into the future — and dubious about fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions being the sole (or even dominant) force in climate and weather. UAE National Oil Co. President Sultan Al-Jaber presided.
COP-28 made it clear that rich nations cannot and will not fund multitrillion-dollar reparations.
As Germany is demonstrating, rich countries will quickly become poor countries if they continue switching to expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar and moving their increasingly uncompetitive industries overseas. Assertions that every extreme weather event and inch of rising seas is due to fossil-fuel use is a wild exaggeration. Poor countries have benefited greatly from technologies and advances made possible largely because of fossil fuels.
Above all, still-impoverished nations and those well on their way to industrialization and modern status (China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and others) may agree to “transition away from” fossil fuels gradually over many decades. But they are not going to sign economic suicide pacts that commit them to phasing out fossil fuels by a certain date.
No matter how loudly former Vice President Al Gore, climate czar John Kerry and other climate alarmists might shout “End Fossil Fuels Now” (after flying private or commercial jets to Dubai), less-developed nations will not and should not surrender their God-given right to health and prosperity.
Poor and developing countries now recognize that these climate warriors aren’t there to protect them or “save the planet.” Their police powers are used to enforce limits on how much poor and working-class families and people of color will be “permitted” to increase their energy consumption and improve their health and living standards.
The U.N.’s scientific-industrial-government climate cabal controls what climate research is recognized, who gets to speak at these events, and what is included in climate agreements. They routinely condemn colonialist nations that subjugated so many regions and ethnic groups in the past.
That’s why it’s ironic that the cabal is now the most powerful and oppressive colonialist power in history, especially over African, Asian and Latin American countries — but also over working-class and minority families in Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States.
Scrapping fossil fuels would deprive the world of reliable, affordable energy, thousands of medical, safety and other products, and modern health and living standards.
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.
1 comment:
Over the past nine years, the IEA (International Energy Agency) estimates $3.5 trillion was invested in wind and solar generation, all of which we believe should be categorized as malinvestment. This spending generated less than 3,500 TWh, a mere 12% of total electricity generation. In 2022 alone, nearly $600 bn was spent to add 500 TWh. The capital intensity of last year’s installation was almost 20% greater than the average over the previous nine years. So much for Moore’s Law.
Over the past six months, several notable wind and solar projects have been canceled, delayed, or impaired due to rising costs. Stocks that were once market favorites have now pulled back hugely. Wind turbine manufacturer Orstead is off 73% from its peak and 47% this year alone. Renewable provider Nextera is off 50% from its peak and 30% this year. Hydrogen maven Plug Power is off an incredible 95% from its peak and 68% this year. The Invesco Solar ETF is off 58% from its peak and 35% this year.
With deficits soaring and energy becoming more scarce and expensive, how much longer can we continue down the renewable path?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.