From SubStack

By Robert Bryce

Offshore wind projects threaten endangered whales; proposed wind projects in Wyoming “will exponentially impact Golden Eagles.”

Golden Eagle, photo by Craig Hughes on Unsplash

Apologists for the wind industry — and there are legions of them at NGOs and on Wall Street — routinely claim that the hundreds of thousands of birds that are killed every year by wind turbines aren’t a big deal. They like to claim that the numbers aren’t that big and that other forms of energy production, and buildings, and cats, kill birds, too.

But Sylvester and Tigger aren’t killing our Bald Eagles and Golden Eagles. Wind turbines are — and they are killing them by the untold hundreds. That was proven last April, when the Department of Justice prosecuted ESI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida-based NextEra Energy, the world’s biggest renewable energy producer, for the deaths of at least 150 Bald and Golden Eagles at its wind projects in Wyoming. The DOJ prosecuted the company for what it called its “blatant disregard” for federal wildlife laws.

Indeed, the agency’s April 5, 2022 press release on the agreement with NextEra Energy, says that the company repeatedly ignored warnings from federal authorities that its proposed wind projects in Wyoming would kill eagles. Despite the warnings, the company went ahead with the projects. Why? So it could collect more in federal tax credits.

The DOJ said NextEra rushed to build the Wyoming wind projects known as Cedar Springs I and II so it could meet “deadlines for particular tax credits for renewable energy.” In other words, NextEra and ESI didn’t get federal permits because they were racing to collect even more subsidies. The DOJ said NextEra “received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal tax credits for generating electricity from wind power at facilities that it operated, knowing that multiple eagles would be killed and wounded without legal authorization, and without, in most instances, paying restitution or compensatory mitigation.” (A photo of the Cedar Springs project is featured prominently in NextEra’s ESG report.)

That’s essential background given the raging debate over offshore wind energy development and the recent deaths of numerous whales on the East Coast. As I reported on January 4, those whales are washing ashore in the same regions that are being targeted for massive offshore wind projects. In that piece, I quoted Sean Hayes, the chief of the protected species branch at the NOAA’s National Northeast Fisheries Science Center. In a letter to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Hayes said that disturbance to the North Atlantic Right Whales’ foraging areas “could have population-level effects on an already endangered and stressed species.” Hayes’ conclusion was unequivocal: the “oceanographic impacts from installed and operating turbines cannot be mitigated for the 30-year lifespan of the project, unless they are decommissioned.” 

Why are so many corporations vying to build offshore wind projects even though their turbines pose a clear threat to one of the most endangered mammals on the planet?  The answer is simple: like NextEra, they want to collect federal tax credits. But unlike Florida-based NextEra, some of the biggest beneficiaries of the tax credits for offshore wind development are foreign companies. As I reported back in 2021, Britain’s BP, Norway’s Equinor, and Denmark’s Ørsted are pushing to develop a total of some 6.2 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity in US waters.

The history of NextEra’s egregious conduct in Wyoming and the travesty of offshore wind development by foreign corporations is relevant to the proposed Two Rivers Wind Energy Project, which is being pushed by Canada-based BluEarth Renewables. The proposed 420-megawatt facility would cover more than 20,000 acres near the town of Medicine Bow, in southeastern Wyoming. As Dustin Bleizeffer reported for WyoFile last month, BluEarth has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service for permission to kill (the legal term is an Incidental Take Permit) up to 11 Bald Eagles and 217 Golden Eagles over the 30-year term of the permit.

But as Bleizeffer reports, “the cumulative impacts of the Two Rivers project when combined with nearby existing and planned wind and solar energy developments remain largely unknown, according to federal agencies.” Bleizeffer goes on to point out that there are already nearly 500 wind turbines within 10 miles of the proposed Two Rivers project and that the Power Company of Wyoming’s planned Chokecherry and Sierra Madre wind project, “will erect 600 wind turbines across a public-private checkerboard of 320,000 acres south of Sinclair.” (Sinclair is about 50 miles west of Medicine Bow.)

Power Company of Wyoming is a wholly owned affiliate of The Anschutz Corporation, which is owned by Denver-based magnate Philip Anschutz. Forbes puts Anschutz’s net worth at about $11 billion.

In 2016, the American Bird Conservancy — one of the few NGOs in America that’s truly interested in protecting wildlife — identified “10 of the worst sited wind energy projects for birds in the U.S.” It included Anschutz’s Chokecherry and Sierra Madre project on the list “primarily because of its potential impacts on Greater Sage-Grouse and Golden Eagles.” It continued, saying that the Wyoming location is “not a good place to put large-scale commercial wind energy and associated infrastructure from the perspective of wildlife conservation.”

In 2015, ABC noted that the Fish and Wildlife Service itself had determined that “Golden Eagle populations in the United States may not be able to sustain any additional, unmitigated mortality and the threshold for this species is zero.”

A Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), in the San Francisco Zoo, 2007. Credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aquila_chrysaetos_Flickr.jpg

That history helps put the Two Rivers project in proper context for the comments filed with the Bureau of Land Management by Mike Lockhart, a veteran wildlife biologist. Lockhart tracks Golden Eagles in Wyoming for the U.S. Geological Survey and Conservation Science Global. Lockhart’s December 23, 2022 comments about the Two Rivers project (see letter #18) are blistering and deserve extensive quotation. He wrote:  

• Given the overriding importance of the Two Rivers wind project area to breeding Golden Eagles, and the unfortunate reality that no reasonably adequate protections would prevent impacts to possibly as many as six territorial pairs of Golden Eagles, I am opposed to this project in its entirety. Moreover, given the exceptional importance of the Shirley and Laramie Basins to both resident, migratory, and overwintering Golden Eagles, I am opposed to additional, future wind projects in Albany and Carbon Counties… My strong opposition stems from an informed belief that current levels of eagle losses from wind projects in these counties is far worse than expected, and is well on a trajectory to exceed the Service’s own Golden Eagle “preservation standard”. Moreover, the native grasslands, shrublands, foothills, ridgelines, and extensive white-tailed prairie dog complexes found in these counties represent perhaps some of the best resident, migrant, and over-wintering Golden Eagle habitat found in N. America, the long-term loss of which would be largely irreversible.
• Wind turbines are a profoundly dangerous, additive human threat to Golden Eagles on Wyoming landscapes. For unknown reasons, Golden Eagles are especially vulnerable to turbine collisions and until somewhat recently, large-scale wind projects were not part of Wyoming’s energy infrastructure. Existing wind development is undoubtedly now killing significant numbers of Golden Eagles in Wyoming. But the rapid expansion and massive footprint of proposed, new projects will exponentially impact Golden Eagles and other wildlife to increased levels of additive loss never experienced before. In contrast to documented, enormous Bald Eagle population increases across North America in the last decade, Golden Eagle populations are thought to be holding their own at best, or are locally declining – perhaps significantly – in some parts of their range.
• I also believe that existing and proposed turbine setbacks and other conservation strategies designed to mitigate on-site eagle losses at Two Rivers, and other area wind projects, are inadequate and will not reasonably arrest an inescapable, spiraling population sink for resident Golden Eagles, nor will these measures prevent increasing, long-term impacts to both migrant and over-wintering Golden Eagles. Simply put, there are specific, exceptional value Golden Eagle habitats and migration corridors where species population risks are too great to justify wind project siting. Although I am a strong renewable energy advocate, the anticipated extent and rate of growth of improperly sited wind projects in Albany and Carbon counties (and elsewhere in Wyoming) will have devastating effects on Golden Eagles and a host of other airborne wildlife… Moreover, a major justification…that this project is necessary to support climate action, is a false equivalency. While I do agree that climate change represents the greatest environmental threat the world faces today, and that extraordinary measures are needed immediately, the high cost to nationally important wildlife resources in Albany and Carbon counties do not justify additional wind development at this specific locale, not while other siting alternatives are available!

That line is powerful: “a major justification…that this project is necessary to support climate action, is a false equivalency.”

A few other points. The Golden Eagle is among the most iconic animals on the planet. It’s the national symbol of Mexico, Albania, Germany, Austria, and Kazakhstan, a distinction that makes it the most common national animal in the world. And yet, now a Canadian company is trying to get permission for a project that will allow it to collect millions of dollars in subsidies courtesy of American taxpayers.

How much might Calgary-based BluEarth collect in U.S. tax credits thanks to the production tax credit, which was extended by Congress last year in the Inflation Reduction Act? My calculations, based on 420 megawatts of capacity and a PTC of $26 per megawatt-hour, show that BluEarth could collect about $32 million per year in federal tax credits each year. What about Anschutz’s Chokecherry and Sierra Madre project, which started construction last April? At 3,000 megawatts of capacity, and a PTC of $26 per megawatt-hour, the Denver billionaire’s company could end up collecting as much as $225 million per year in federal tax credits. Who knew that killing Bald and Golden Eagles could come with such lavish tax breaks?

A few days ago, here on Substack, Michael Shellenberger and Leighton Woodhouse underscored the “environmental betrayal” underway as some of the  biggest NGOs in the country including the Audubon Society and National Wildlife Federation “betray the precautionary principle by risking the extinction of the North Atlantic Right Whale.”

An almost identical betrayal is afoot in Wyoming.

I have been saying the same thing for more than a decade, and I will say it again here: Killing our most-iconic wildlife in the hope that a few hundred (or thousand) wind turbines will have a measurable impact on climate change is nonsense on stilts. Federal authorities should heed what Lockhart said in his comments to the BLM: when it comes to the Golden Eagle, the “species population risks are too great to justify” permitting more wind projects in Wyoming. Federal authorities should reject the application for the Two Rivers wind project. And while they are at it, they should rescind the permit for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre project.

From Watts Up With That?

Hard to top this one.

I cued it up to the correct spot, but 4:56 is where it happens in case that doesn’t work on some devices.

---

Here’s some bonus Friday Funny memes I grabbed in a quick Twitter search.

Anthony’s comment was:

Are you saying the carbon remover is a catalyst?

Here’s another

And one more.

From substack.com

By Marc Girardot

COVID, the pinnacle of a medical collective lunacy entrenched in vaccine propaganda at any cost, even at the expense of our children’s health. This needs to stop.

Friends – and foes – keep asking me: “Why are you absurdly stubborn on your Bolus Theory?”… The reason for my self-harming insistence is that if we let this crisis go down simply to a vaccine design flaw, a collective panic, a systemic corruption, or even manufacturing quality issues, if we find a variety of semi-truths, we will not addressed the profound reality of what has happened these past 3 years… – let me rephrase and correct this statement! – We will not address collectively the public health disaster that has been happening for nearly 60 years. This public health disaster was driven essentially by the underlying authoritarian belief within part of Public Health Authorities and the Medical community that they know better, and therefore our informed consent can be nudged and manipulated for the greater cause of perceived collective health.

Whoever has kept his/her eyes opened these past 3 years can have a grasp as to the extent to which this hubristic lunacy can go… but, in my observation, the reality is far worse.

I want to give credit to and compliment Neil Z. Miller of the Institute of Medical and Scientific Inquiry in Santa Fe, New Mexico, for a courageous and insightful article that triggered and inspired me today : “Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature”. All of you should read it. It’s an eye opener.

Addendum (Warning): 
I have received comments stating that ICD codes have always had ways to label vaccine death, and that therefore my article is misleading. 

After looking into it, it's true that there are vaccine labels in ICD 9 and 10, but it is also true that they are not appropriate, and are in my opinion misleading.

In 1979, they did suppress from the ICD code list the label: 
"E933 - Complications and misadventures in prophylaxis with bacterial vaccines" which I believe was appropriately defined.

It was part of a greater category called:
"(E930-E936) Surgical and medical complications and misadventures"

W.H.O. and the C.D.C. replaced it by:
"E948  Bacterial vaccines" and "E949  Other vaccines and biological substances" (which is much more neutral than "complications and misadventures")

as part of "(E930-E949) Drugs, medicaments and biological substances causing adverse effects in therapeutic use"

which is misleading because, to the exception of rabies, vaccines are not for therapeutic use, so how was a coroner supposed to use that one?

The alternative was:
"978 Poisoning by bacterial vaccines" and "979 Poisoning by other vaccines and biological substances"

as part of:
(960-979) Poisoning by drugs, medicaments and biological substances

But the term "poisoning" is very strong and requires necessarily an autopsy, proof which were at the time, and still are today, very difficult to determine.

Today, indeed the ICD-10 code now has a label Y58/Y59 part of (Y40-Y84)
that includes "correct drug properly administered in therapeutic or prophylactic dosage as the cause of any adverse effect"..,

---

Mislabeling Vaccination Deaths for 50 Years?

There was a time – a long time ago – when I studied Language as a theme in philosophy.

“Putting a name on things” is critically important in our collective life. It is indispensable to understanding the world, to building our intelligence, to communicating and solving problem…and therefore more generally to surviving.

What if a group of few individuals had the ability to un-name a concept or a thing? Would that reality disappear? … Not really. If the name in question were attributed to a real thing, say a coconut, the coconut would not stop existing. An alternative name would likely be found, may be someone from another country would bring “noix de coco

1”.
What if it were a concept, something intangible? Well, that certainly would make things more complicated, but again, clear minded people would figure out a new way to express that concept and find another name…

What if that same group of people would impose a strict NewSpeak worldwide, a novel name, a unique standard that means a radically different thing? Well then the concept would literally disappear of the records of society, drowned into a conceptual pot-pourris. And the concept would become fuzzier requiring extensive ressources and time to resurface. Most don’t have time to dedicate to phantomatic treasure hunts, specially to unearth a painful concept…

What if I told you this actually happened?!
In 1979, the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. redesigned the ICD coding list – International Classification of Diseases – and erased the possibility for the world’s coroners to label a cause of death related to vaccination! You heard me. A coroner had no longer a clear code to input if he/she believed someone died of a vaccine. [vaccines are not therapeutic, they are prophylactic. And the poisoning carries legal implications which coroners probably would never venture into.] Have Big Brothers W.H.O. and CDC been “guiding” coroners to mischaracterise vaccination deaths ? In any case, this suppression means that “Informed Consent” has been corrupt for decades as the extent of vaccine harm necessarily was downplayed considerably.

“Vaccines and sudden infant death: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature” by Neil Miller, 2021

In the US alone, in the past 25 year, nearly $ 5 billion have been awarded to 9,946 victims

2of vaccination, or to their families. Obviously, ten thousand people represents the tip of a much larger iceberg. Those who had the clairvoyance to acknowledge vaccination harm, who had the fortitude and ressources to fight for compensation and who benefitted from the good fortune to win in court are a happy few in the tens of millions of vaccines injured, most of whom lived through their pain and health drama never knowing the vaccination was the cause of their Parkinson’s disease, or their cancer.

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Monthly Statistics Report 

However there’s no question : In front of the Law, despite public health manipulations, vaccines harm exists and vaccination has been recognised as a killer in many cases, notably of babies.

Collectively, if we continue to hide vaccination harm, we will never get to understand the underlying cause of these dramas, and will never stop them.

Though I have more and more doubts on the efficacy and the very justification of many vaccines – call me anti-vaxxer! I’ll wear it as a badge of honour – what I am trying to highlight today is that if we hide reality, there’s no way people will actually find a solution to this never-ending flow of illnesses, however dramatic and sad. We can continue with this dramatic circus forever.

To be honest, I find it infuriating that some doctors dared telling me – when I was a young father – that it would be my fault if one of my toddlers would die. Seeding doubt and guilt as to whether I would have positioned the baby right in bed. I can’t imagine the guilt some parents have had to face – and still face every day – finding their little baby dead in the crib. Taking the responsibility and the guilt upon themselves when, in reality, the injection was to blame!

Data show that for decades, public health officials and doctors have been playing Gods, indiscriminately injecting kids with an ever growing arsenal of products, occasionally killing them, often harming them for life.

Prior to the 1960s, the concept of sudden infant death syndrome didn’t even exist, and was not listed in the main causes of mortality. So, between 1960 and 1980, public health had to realise immunisation was a cause for serious concern. In 1979, they chose to hide it from the public and to protect vaccine manufacturers. And so harm has continued … as if nothing could be done to avoid vaccine adverse effects.

Between 1990 and 2019, 2,605 infant deaths were reported in VAERS, 78.3% of these deaths occurring within a week of vaccination! For the record, using a 59x myocarditis under-reporting factor (likely conservative) as per the Engler et al study

3 on SmallPox vaccines – one can estimate that nearly 153,700 babies died of vaccination over thirty years. Some 5,120 families sorrowed each year during decades.

17% of all infant deaths reported in VAERS occur the day of vaccination. And 78% within a week!

That’s no coincidence. In any other business, that synchronicity would be evidence enough, specially given:

• healthy kids don’t normally die,
• the stake are high: our kids’ lives!
• the precautionary principle would invite to a review, if not an immediate complete halt.

But “No!” in public health, a scientist reporting that will be shamed and his carrier ruined for questioning the official narrative, as we have witnessed these past 3 years.

Public Health Authorities have managed turning ethics upside-down supposedly for the greater good.

Except if it’s truly for the greater good, why are they spending so much energy trying to:

• Erase all traces of vaccination-induced death or harm by stopping coroners using the appropriate label;
• Relabel vaccination-caused deaths with other illegal labels: bed suffocation, strangulation fallacies, COVID…
• Fragment and camouflage all adverse effects so as to make them acceptable (viral, bacterial, genetic, unexplainable!) as if Guillain-Barré, autism, SIDS, hepatitis or pediatric myocarditis hadn’t the same root cause. A very dark divide and conquer strategy built on hubris and arrogance, possibly corruption.

Let’s be honest, presumably to avoid vaccine hesitancy, we are causing harm to our new-borns and to our children! We are no different than Incas practicing human sacrifice. Actually, we are far worse as the numbers are staggering.

Whether it is to capture billions of dollars in revenue, or to pay tribute to the vaccine God (some are religious and utterly irrational about vaccines), we have sacrificed our collective health to this lunacy, and the emotional and economic consequences of this are simply gigantic.

Imagine if we could avoid many cancers, most Parkinson and Alzheimer’s diseases, MSI, autism…and more. That’s what we are contemplating, however hard it is to believe.

As we are witnessing in the gruesome aftermath of COVID vaccination, immumisation accidents occur frequently

4. Pr. Muëller from Basel University Hospital showed 2.8% of vaccinated staff had clinical cardiac issues, and that 100% had some degree of cardiac impact…

Throughout multiple articles, I have demonstrated that inadvertent intravascular injection of vaccines is a reality, and that the mechanism of harm

5 can – and will – apply across the endothelium according to the exposure of the endothelium. And so to SIDS, one needs to add clinical and sub-clinical damage to:

• the brain likely explaining the explosion of autism this past 20 years,

the heart explaining the rise in pediatric myocarditis6 ,

the liver explaining hepatitis as we saw over summer

the bone marrow explaining children blood cancers such as Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia which particularly touch toddler below 5 years of age;

• the pancreas with Type 1 Diabetes …

May be it’s time for our generation to wake up, dig into our ancestors’ self-preservation DNA and resist this man-made dystopia.

---

Contrary to what we have been made to believe, vaccination is neither safe for our children, nor for us. Poor vaccination protocols have been the likely premier cause of illnesses for over a century. The stakes are enormous, civilisational, I would risk. A civilisation that doesn’t care for its children inevitably will flounder. Does our generation have the grit to tackle this monster? For our children, I pray we will find the force. Let’s start by demanding a change in the W.H.O. ICD codes and ask – as my friend John Beaudoin has been asking for months – that vaccine databases be tied with mortuary databases.

Putting a name on the cause of death is a minimum respect owed to our deceased…

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Will the 11,000 residents of Pontiac, Illinois truly benefit from the proposed construction of a commercial solar farm that would thrust the city into the ranks of a renewable energy producer?

This question will be uppermost on the minds of people attending a Feb. 13 hearing before the City of Pontiac Planning and Zoning Board. The project’s developer, Bundleflower Solar LLC, is seeking favorable treatment from the board that will help move the solar farm from the drawing board to completion.

The future of the project hinges on the board’s granting three requests from the developer. First, Bundleflower Solar requests that the initial term of the Special Use Permit it seeks, which requires commencement of construction within one year of issuance of said permit, be extended to 36 months with the possibility of further extension if “good cause” is shown.

Second, the developer is seeking a variance from the Pontiac Zoning Ordinance that would reduce the ordinance’s 1500-foot setback requirement for solar farms near Illinois Route 23 to 100 feet from the highway. Finally, Bundleflower Solar wants the board to rezone the parcel on which the project would be located from a “B-3 Business and Wholesale District to an A-1 Agricultural District.”

In petitioning the city to reduce the setback requirement for the solar panels from 1500 feet to 100 feet from Illinois State Route 23, and for extending the start of construction after issuance of the Special Use Permit from one year to three years – or longer, Bundleflower Solar is revealing that its project is on shakier ground than many may have assumed.

The Realities of Intermittent Solar Power

As currently projected, the project will consist of as many as 5,538 photovoltaic (PV) solar panels occupying 29 acres of a 48-acre parcel of land. According to the developer, once in operation, the project will supply approximately 300 to 400 homes with electricity. But this is not electricity that will be available 24/7.

The 5,500 or so solar panels will not supply power at night, they will not supply power during rainy or cloudy days, and they will not supply power when covered with snow during northern Illinois’s cold winters. Just as wind turbines produce no electricity when the wind doesn’t blow (or blows to hard), solar arrays generate no power when it’s dark. Some other – more reliable – source of electricity will have to pick up the slack, which raises the question: Why bother with solar arrays in the first place?

The answer lies in the incentives governments lavish on providers of renewable energy. Under Illinois’s “Climate and Equity Jobs Act’ (CEJA), Bundleflower Solar would be constructing what is known as a “community solar project,” which will allow residential and commercial customers to subscribe to the electricity the solar farm produces.

CEJA also stipulates that a developer – in this case, Bundleflower Solar – will not be able to move forward with construction of the solar farm until it receives approval for its application for Renewable Energy Credits for the project, and until weather and ground conditions are favorable for the project.

It is doubtful that Bundleflower Solar would even pursue the project in Pontiac (or anyplace else) without the prospect of Energy Tax Credits under state law, as well as the federal subsidy for solar developers, known as the Investment Tax Credit (ITC).

Yet, despite its potential eligibility for generous state and federal subsidies, Bundleflower Solar still seeks an extension of its Special Use Permit to begin construction for 36 months or more. The company’s action strongly suggests that it fears the project may have difficulty getting off the ground.

In fact, despite lavish tax credits and a favorable investment climate, construction of grid-scale solar and wind projects has plummeted across the U.S. Citing data from the Solar Energy Industries Association and the research firm Wood Mackenzie, the Wall Street Journal (Jan. 23) reported that new utility-scale solar installations fell 40 percent in 2022 compared with 2021. Reasons for the delays include supply-chain bottlenecks, long waits in connecting to the grid, and – increasingly – resistance by residents to having these land-intensive projects built in their communities.

Not a Good Deal for Pontiac

In the case of the proposed solar farm in Pontiac, the developer has made it clear in papers filed with the city that without a ten-fold reduction in the variance separating the solar panels from Route 23, the project will not go forward. At this point, it is not clear what the Pontiac Planning and Zoning Board and the city’s residents are getting themselves into.

They are being asked to green light a project that may never be built, or will be built only after years of delays – all to produce electricity that will only be available on an intermittent basis, while the developer lines its pockets with taxpayer subsidies.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Author

• Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.
• Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT, where he focuses on natural resources, energy, property rights, and geopolitical developments.
• Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investor’s Busines Daily, The New York Post, The Washington Examiner, The Washington Times, The Hill, The Epoch Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers around the country. He has been interviewed on Fox News, Fox Business Network, CNN, NBC News, NPR, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, N24 (German-language news network), and scores of radio stations in the U.S. and Canada.
• He has testified before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee. Dr. Cohen has addressed conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. He has a B.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph. D. – summa cum laude – from the University of Munich.

From theconservativetreehouse

This is a topic we have covered extensively, and it is great to see Tucker Carlson questioning the sudden alignment of various elements that are creating a very real food insecurity problem.

The #1 factor in the shortage of food production is the newly emboldened ‘western energy policy‘ and the impact energy has on everything from field (fertilizer) to fork (distribution).  Other factors include government policy that blocks food development (Dutch, Irish and Sri Lanka Farmers), a sudden uptick in food facilities having major fires and damage, and a series of issues with the feed that goes into the production of proteins.

This is all happening as the advancement of insects as a more “sustainable” protein replacement is being advanced by the same western governments.  However, if you happen to notice that all of the issues travel in the same direction, you are a conspiracy theorist, or something.  

WATCH:

We have been watching the predictable outcomes surrounding the western government shift to change energy policy for almost two years.  Approximately a year ago we first said, “the absence of food will change things.”

As energy resources like natural gas were curtailed the resulting price increase and subsequent shortage of fertilizer was discussed in great detail well in advance.

Now, we are starting to see exactly what those warning voices were talking about.

An interesting article in ZeroHedge Saturday [SEE HERE] draws attention to how the media can no longer try to ignore the created global food crisis.

ZeroHedge – People on the other side of the planet are dropping dead from starvation right now, but most people don’t even realize that this is happening.  Unfortunately, most people just assume that everything is fine and dandy.  If you are one of those people that believe that everything is just wonderful, I would encourage you to pay close attention to the details that I am about to share with you.  Global hunger is rapidly spreading, and that is because global food supplies have been getting tighter and tighter. 

If current trends continue, we could potentially be facing a nightmare scenario before this calendar year is over. (read more)

The article then goes on to detail the issues and food shortages in Pakistan, India and the entire African continent.  Factually, according to media reports on the region, the worst food crisis in history is happening – yet most U.S. and European Union media are avoiding it.  The famine is happening in almost complete western silence.

Keep in mind, none of this is unexpected.  In fact, the G7 countries discussed the pending problem in mid 2022, yet no one took any steps to avoid it.

Vladimir Putin’s military action against eastern Ukraine had nothing to do with the severe food shortages and inflation in Sri Lanka {link}.  Nor did Russia have any influence over the Dutch government trying to stop food production {link}.  Additionally, Putin had no control over Justin Trudeau’s decision to limit harvest yields by blocking the use of nitrogen-based fertilizer {link}. More importantly, it was not Vladimir Putin who forced all the western politicians to sign up for a new ‘climate friendly’ energy program that is destroying the ability of western farms to generate higher yield crops.

You do not need to be a farmer to understand that nitrogen/phosphorus-based industrial fertilizer has been the reason why farm yields have generated massive amounts of food on a global basis.  The United States, Canada, the U.K. and places like the Netherlands have massively increased their ability to generate food for export, in large part due to the success of improved fertilizer and crop saving modern pesticides.  Take those farming advancements away under the guise of climate change and you get Sri Lanka, Pakistan and now the African Continent.

Those western climate and energy policies create downstream consequences.  The decision to chase a new global energy policy under the name “Build Back Better,” in combination with short-sighted EU sanctions against Russia, and you get food shortages.

It was not Vladimir Putin who told British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz their proactive recommendation to switch from crop-based biofuels to human food would be blocked.  That G7 decision was made by Justin Trudeau and Joe Biden. {link} Even more significantly, it was not Russia who threatened the multinational energy companies about investing in Africa for expanded natural gas supplies for their fertilizer needs. That threat came from the same western government alliance, per their instructions from the World Economic Forum group {link}.

It was predictable {JUNE 21st} {June 30th} and {July 6th} that western government leaders would seek to avoid responsibility for the food crisis they created, and throughout the latter part of 2022 we saw western media trying, desperately, to frame Russia for global food shortages in order to protect western politicians.

I said this in July of last year and as the consequences now surface it is even more critical to understand.

Joe Biden, NATO, the G7, the European Union, the World Bank, USAID, and every western leader in the United States and Europe stated in early and mid 2022 there will be food shortages in 2023.

They did not say there might be shortages; their statements were emphatic, there will be shortages.

Accept this basic cornerstone.  Then ask why not a single proactive step has been taken by any of the aforementioned institutions or governments to alleviate what they declare is a certainty.  Why?

Simple question, “why?”

If all of the western nations, non-govt organizations and heads of state, are aware of a coming food crisis, why is there no proactive response?

It is a question that even the most hardcore leftists will not answer, because there is only one answer.  No action is being taken because they do not want to take action.  No effort to avoid the crisis is being done, because they do not want the crisis avoided.

Peel all the layers of obfuscation and causation away, and what we find is the epicenter of the food shortage is directly the result of the Build Back Better agenda.  A post-pandemic western government deliberate decision to radically change global energy development.  In succinct terms, the climate change agenda.

However, regardless of how you feel about the validity of “climate change,” the cause of diminished food supplies is purposeful.  It is not climate change causing food shortages. It is the purposeful action taken under the guise of mitigating climate change that is causing the shortage of food.

The collective Build Back Better energy policy of western governments’ is the reason for massive increases in energy costs, massive oil price jumps, gasoline price increases, significant increases in chemical costs, increases in diesel fuel costs, shortages of fertilizer created using natural gas, and the end result is lower crop yields, higher farming costs and eventually, food shortages.  They knew this.

All of the organizations and government who have been decrying the future shortage of food, know it is the radical shift in energy resource development that is creating the crisis.  This acceptance of reality begins the framework to understand just how entrenched and committed these western leaders are toward their beloved climate change agenda.

We are only just now beginning to see the first aspects of the food shortage.  However, once the issue becomes unavoidable the western leaders will not and cannot accept the blame for what they have done.  They will blame-cast, excuse and justify what is surfacing.

Food shortages will be blamed on the Ukraine conflict, Russian aggression, climate change and any various iteration of justification that does not identify the true cause, their energy ideology.

I’m not so sure that people fully understand what the entire system of western government would be willing to do to avoid being blamed for avoidable death on a potential scale that is quite alarming.  All of the western leaders, institutions and governments are on the same boat.   

They are all in this together.

(June 22, 2022) – (Reuters) – The European Union is divided on how to help poorer nations fight a growing food crisis and address shortages of fertilizers caused by the war in Ukraine, with some fearing a plan to invest in plants in Africa would clash with EU green goals.

The need for food “clashes with EU green goals.”…  Let that sink in.

Priorities!

Nothing to see here comrade, nothing to see….

From substack.com

By JOHN LEAKE

Today I received reports that Dutch pro cycling star Lieuwe Westra (40) and University of Arizona star swimmer, Ty Wells (23) have, in recent days, died suddenly. Judging by media reporting, the cause of their deaths is unknown. The two great athletes—both at the pinnacle of human fitness—apparently just died.

News of their deaths reminded me of a new book that I’ve been meaning to review for the last six weeks. The only reason I’ve hesitated is that this particular book strikes me as one of the most momentous ever written, so strange that it almost defies belief. The story it tells seems like something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, but in fact it falls squarely within the true crime genre.

At its heart is a mystery that now confronts all of mankind. Something out there—some horrible agent that entered the world in 2021—is killing humanity’s fittest. What could it be? What could be causing this “Epidemic of Sudden Deaths,” to quote the subtitle of Edward Dowd’s new book, CAUSE UKNOWN.

As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. introduced the author in the book’s Forward:

Among the world’s towering financial titans is BlackRock, a company with a bigger economy than every country on Earth except the U.S. and China. They manage $10 trillion in assets. In 2002, BlackRock recruited the brilliant Wall Street careerist, Edward Dowd, and soon promoted him to serve as Managing Director. Turns out BlackRock made a very good bet on Ed Dowd: The Growth Fund he managed started at $2 billion; by the time he left BlackRock it was at $14 billion. His work with BlackRock required a keen ability to understand markets, pick stocks, analyze statistics, and identity trends.

In 2021, Dowd found himself withdrawing from Wall Street to study an entirely new kind of trend: the expanding and tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people.

CAUSE UNKNOWN presents the results of Dowd’s investigation. Since I received my copy, I have tried very hard to play the Devil’s Advocate against it, but in the final analysis, the “tragic epidemic of sudden deaths among healthy young people” cannot be a fluke of increased detection and reporting, hyper-vigilance, or confirmation bias. What Mr. Dowd documents is terrifyingly real.

What, Dowd asks, was introduced into our world in 2021, when the epidemic began? Like all good true crime authors, he doesn’t jump to conclusions, but does a terrific job of collating and analyzing the evidence.

Judging by the Afterword by Gavin de Becker—founder of Gavin de Becker Associates—Dowd was assisted by one of the world’s most capable investigators. Mr. de Becker’s 1997 book, Gift of Fear, is widely considered the most insightful ever written on the subject of identifying and assessing mortal dangers.

I won’t spoil the ending by revealing Mr. Dowd’s thesis of what is causing the epidemic of sudden deaths among young people. Regular readers of this Substack won’t be surprised, but they will still be stunned by the book’s meticulous documentation of the global catastrophe, and saddened by its page after page of smiling children and youths who are no longer with their parents, siblings, and friends.

I especially recommend the book to all of the coroners and medical examiners of the world who—for whatever reasons—seem to remain clueless.

Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 & 2022, (Skyhorse Publishing/Children’s Health Defense) Hardcover – December 13, 2022, by Ed Dowd (Author), Gavin de Becker (Afterword), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Foreword).

By Jo Nova

The environmental fashion parade suddenly has a smell…

This is a notable shift:  Twenty years ago BP called itself “Beyond Petroleum”, and only one year ago the CEO said BP was “accelerating” its green investments. But now the CEO is reassuring investors that BP is not going to be distracted by environmental goals, and are focused on maximizing profits. Furthermore those profits would be found where it has a competitive advantage, including  it’s “legacy oil and gas operations”.

Just like that: it’s OK to talk about profits and energy security. Key words here are “dialing back”, “disappointed”, “narrower” and “less emphasis” and they are all used in relation to environmental investments.

After years of sunshine and unicorns on the forced transition to unreliable energy, the mood appears to be changing.

h/t Paul Homewood at Notalotofpeopleknowthat

BP’s CEO Plays Down Renewables Push as Returns Lag

Bernard Looney seeks to sharpen strategic focus, with less emphasis on environmental goals

Jenny Strasberg, Wall Street Journal

Chief Executive Bernard Looney plans to dial back elements of the oil giant’s high-profile push into renewable energy, according to people familiar with recent discussions.

Mr. Looney has said he is disappointed in the returns from some of the oil giant’s renewable investments and plans to pursue a narrower green-energy strategy, the people said. He has told some people close to the company that BP needs to do more to convince shareholders of its strategy to maximize profits in areas where it has a competitive advantage, including its legacy oil-and-gas operations.

In some of the conversations, Mr. Looney has said he plans to place less emphasis on so-called ESG goals—a catchall term for environmental, social and governance—to help clarify that those aren’t distracting the company from its ability to deliver profits, the people said.

One BP investor said shareholders were carefully watching the performance of renewable investments.

They said: “Societally, people are now more focused on the question of energy security – we’ve got to be mindful that as we run up the new system of renewables, you can’t run down the old system too aggressively; it’s a transition, it’s not a step change.”

This appears to be a company wide shift. Only three days ago the chief economist at BP said that we’d need oil and gas for decades yet.

Oil and gas investment needed for another 30 years, BP warns

By Rachel Millard, The Telegraph

Fossil fuels only way to combat energy shortages, oil giant claims

Investment in oil and gas production will be needed for the next three decades if the world is to avoid more shortages and price swings, BP has warned. The oil giant said in its annual energy outlook published on Monday that fossil fuels are still likely to account for about 20pc of primary energy in 2050 even under a significant tightening of climate policies.

“This would be the first time in modern history that there has been a sustained fall in the demand for any fossil fuel.”

Media spin runs as strong as ever

The New York Times and Reuters readers though, are seeing headlines like this generated from the same BP report.

“The Shift to Renewables is speeding up. Here’s how.”

The head of the world’s leading energy organization called the war in Ukraine an “accelerator” of the transition.

“Ukraine War to accelerate shift to clean energy BP says”

“The increased focus on energy security as a result of the Russia-Ukraine war has the potential to accelerate the energy transition as countries seek to increase access to domestically produced energy, much of which is likely to come from renewables and other non-fossil fuels,” BP Chief Economist Spencer Dale said in the report.

It’s like we live in two different worlds. Some investors may be in for a nasty surprise.

To be fair though, BP are generating the kind of reports that “appeal both ways”. But what’s different is that a few years ago they wouldn’t have dared pouring cold water on the environmental message or talking about energy security and the need for fossil fuels.

But make no mistake there is still a lot of conflict in the companies core mission

Are these plans still current?

BP has said it plans by 2030 to slash its fossil-fuel production by 40% from 2019 levels. Mr. Looney has set a target of increasing investments in what it calls “transition growth businesses” including renewable energy and convenience-store operations to around 50% of total capital spending by 2030, up from more than 40% by 2025. Mr. Looney and his Lieutenants have said the company is balancing its deeper push into low-emission projects while still nurturing legacy cash cows like oil-and-gas production and trading. — WallStreetJournal

According to the Wall Street Journal, earnings from oil and gas were projected to be $30 to $35b annually by 2030, while the renewables earning target was $10b.

For perspective, BP abandoned solar and biofuels between 2011-2015:

In 2011–2015, BP cut down its alternative energy business. The company announced its departure from the solar energy market in December 2011 by closing its solar power business, BP Solar.^[136] In 2012, BP shut down the BP Biofuels Highlands project which was developed since 2008 to make cellulosic ethanol from emerging energy crops like switchgrass and from biomass.^[137][138] In 2015, BP decided to exit from other lignocellulosic ethanol businesses.^[139] It sold its stake in Vivergo to Associated British Foods.^[140] BP and DuPont also mothballed their joint biobutanol pilot plant in Saltend.^{[141] — Wikipedia}

If there were easy profits to be made in solar or biofuels, presumably BP wouldn’t have axed them.

BP Energy Outlook 2023  |  Photo by Keith Edkins |

From Watts Up With That?

Brief Note by Kip Hansen — 2 February 2023

Dave Middleton, a frequent contributor here at WUWT, quotes a report about the potential of geothermal energy in Texas which is stated to have been produced by the “state’s flagship universities — including the University of Texas at Austin, Rice University and Texas A&M University — [in collaboration] with the International Energy Agency “.  The actual report can be downloaded here.  

I say “actual report” because when one looks at the authorship of the report, one finds that the report has in fact been edited by and attributed to a non-profit advocacy group Project InnerSpace.  The two editors listed are: Jamie C. Beard, Esq., Founder and Executive Director of Project InnerSpace & Dr. Bryant A. Jones, Head of Policy and Education at Project InnerSpace. There is no indication in the full report – none whatever – that the report was produced in collaboration with IEA.  One of the many co-authors, Rebecca Schulz, is a “consultant for the World Energy Outlook team at the International Energy Agency (IEA)”.

And what is the IEA — the International Energy Agency — anyway?  It is an international agency in charge of the world’s energy?  Does it have regulatory powers under the United Nations?  Not exactly.

Here’s what IEA itself says:

The IEA was created in 1974 to help co-ordinate a collective response to major disruptions in the supply of oil. While oil security remains a key aspect of our work, the IEA has evolved and expanded significantly since its foundation. …. “Taking an all-fuels, all-technology approach, the IEA recommends policies that enhance the reliability, affordability and sustainability of energy.”  [ source ]

Translating that into plain, non-policy-geek English:

“The International Energy Agency (IEA) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organisation, established in 1974, that provides policy recommendations, analysis and data on the entire global energy sector, with a recent focus on curbing carbon emissions and reaching global climate targets, including the Paris Agreement.”

And, not to put too fine a point on it, but the IEA was proud to publish a booklet:  “Net Zero by 2050 — A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector” [ full .pdf here ].  

Speaking about this report Fatih Birol, the IEA Executive Director, said:

 “Our Roadmap shows the priority actions that are needed today to ensure the opportunity of net-zero emissions by 2050 – narrow but still achievable – is not lost. The scale and speed of the efforts demanded by this critical and formidable goal – our best chance of tackling climate change and limiting global warming to 1.5 °C – make this perhaps the greatest challenge humankind has ever faced.”

Birol is also chairman of the World Economic Forum (Davos) Energy Advisory Board.

Bottom Line:

1.  The IEA is no longer a disinterested group of energy analysts advising world leaders about our energy options.  They started out trying to broker energy supply disagreements during the 1970s…but have transitioned into a full-on, all-aboard advocacy group promoting NetZero policies, to both national governments and to the power brokers at Davos.

2)  They do produce really terrific charts, graphs and data sets of energy production, usage, distribution, and a wide and far-reaching portfolio of other energy related topics.  This is a very valuable service.  However, given their recent shift to advocacy, one now needs to consider the possibility of bias in those charts and graphs.

3)  Like many other agencies and groups, who’s very names seem to give them authority (which they do not have) the IEA wields much more power than they ought to have – particularly with the elite that meet at Davos. Alternately, it may well be said that Davos wields too much power over the IEA.

# # # # #

Author’s Comment:

I like  the IEA provided graphs and charts – they are generally very good and informative.  Their analysts do good work. 

I suspect that their NetZero enthusiasm is yet another case of the go-along-to-get-along, band-wagoning of their top executives to “popular causes”.  Similar to almost every professional organization that has issued policy statements on everything from global warming to the use of personal pronouns, all without polling their members.

I might be wrong….

# # # # #

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Recently OAN’s Stella Escobedo interviewed Dr. Matthew Weilicki concerning his joining the declaration against any climate “emergency.”  Below I provide a transcript with my bolds along with some exhibits. SE refers to Stella Escobedo and MW to Matthew Weilicki.

https://videopress.com/v/dfCH2QEI?resizeToParent=true&cover=true&preloadContent=metadata&useAverageColor=true

SE:  Well, you have probably heard that climate change is an existential threat and we need to do something about it right away. The World Economic Forum was just held in Davos, Switzerland, with discussions of the climate crisis front and center. Biden has persuade Democrats in Congress to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to fight climate change.

But there are hundreds of scientists around the world who say there is no climate emergency. In fact, they have signed the World Climate Declaration. And one of the biggest things they say is climate science should be less political. And I’d like to welcome to the show Dr. Matthew Weilicki. He’s currently a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Alabama. Dr. Weilicki., thank you so much for joining us.

MW: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

SE: Of course..So before we get started, Dr. Weilicki, I want you to tell our viewers a little bit about your educational background and why you’re educated enough to to have this conversation and to talk about this topic.

MW:  Yes, absolutely. So my original bachelor’s degree is actually biochemistry and cellular biology. I worked in four novel vaccine companies for them through my original degree, and I went on to kind of shift gears and I went and got a Ph.D. in geochemistry from UCLA. And because I don’t really work in climate science per se, and I also don’t work in oil and gas exploration, I am an Earth scientist that uses a lot of the same tools that both of these types of fields will use. But I felt that I could take an objective look in and offer my expert opinion without really having any kind of, you know, any sort of motivation on either side. And I thought that would allow me to take an objective view. But the background that I have is very similar to the way that we try to identify what the climate looked like in the past, which is mainly through geochemistry.

SE: So, Dr. Weilicki, you are one of more than a thousand scientists who have signed this petition that says there is no climate emergency. Explain why you say that.

MW:  I think if we take an objective look at the data, it’s very difficult to see any metric that would allow us to explain the state of the climate as in an emergency or in a crisis, as you commonly hear. If we look at, for example, human lives lost from natural disasters, I ask my students this all the time and they are convinced that there has been significantly more lives being lost in natural disasters today than over the last hundred years. Let’s say that number has decreased by something like 97%.

And so it’s clear. And the graphic you’re showing now, another question that I ask is how often are how many natural disasters are occurring? And so these students are usually freshmen and sophomores and things like that. And I ask them these questions about about the state of the climate. And I’m noticing that they have the exact wrong view of what’s happening. They’re convinced that more people are dying, more disasters are happening. And if you look at the empirical evidence, the data just doesn’t support that claim. And I think that the mental health effects are really damaging to these young people.

Source: Roger Pielke, Jr.

SE: Well, any time we do have massive flooding, heat waves or wildfires, as you just mentioned, we’re constantly being told it is climate change. Even the World Meteorological Organization has legitimized it. What are your thoughts on that?

MW: This is really part of the problem. This is this is why I blame these organizations. I don’t blame these young people for for believing this. I think if I was in my twenties, I would probably believe that the world is in catastrophe mode. But, you know, these these constant catastrophizing of weather events, weather is not climate. And to to harp and to take advantage of every extreme event to try to push your narrative is so disingenuous.

And these are smart people. They know that weather is not climate. Climate is very different. We’re talking about long term trends and variability in weather patterns and to try to catastrophize a single flood or a single hurricane and make the claim that if we didn’t burn fossil fuels or if we lowered atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions, somehow the flood wouldn’t have occurred or the hurricane wouldn’t have occurred. That is absurd. We know in the geologic record that these events happen. Sometimes they happen worse more than other times. But these happen. This is not has nothing to do with the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  This is a much larger issue.

And to suggest that we wouldn’t have extreme weather if we could just change
one trace gas in the atmosphere is absolutely not scientific.

SE: Well, you have so many smart people like yourself who are speaking up saying there is no climate emergency. And yet do you feel like people like yourself are getting any real attention? In fact, many scientists get defunded for speaking out, get called climate deniers. How do you respond to that?

MW:  Yes, absolutely. I think that’s such a it’s such a derogatory term. It’s. Clearly trying to link people that are skeptical about climate and making questions about science with Holocaust deniers. I was born in Poland, just a few hours from the gates of Auschwitz. I lost many family members in the Holocaust. To try to link me because I have questions about science to denying the Holocaust is absolutely disingenuous. It’s an ad hominem attack because people realize that the empirical evidence doesn’t support what they’re saying and how catastrophize they’re trying to make the climate and such. They don’t want to discuss the actual data, so they’d rather label you a name and try to deplatform you or defund you. And, you know, I find it to be a very disingenuous way of having a scientific discussion.

SE: You know, just a few days ago, you announced you’re leaving the university and a post on Twitter. I saw you say some of it is personal family related. But you also mentioned it’s no longer a place that embraces freedom of exchanging ideas. Can you elaborate?

MW:  Yes. My life dream was to be a professor. My father was a professor ever since I was about 12 years old. And we made a pretty big sacrifice by moving from all of our families in California. We moved to Alabama because I really wanted to pursue this career, and I really started to realize pretty quickly that it wasn’t the way that my father remembered it. And when we would have discussions and this rise of illiberalism, that’s what I like to call it, this idea, these ideological ideas, the fact that there are certain things that are undiscussed that you can’t discuss.

What I was talking about was DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion.
And even having a discussion about this is very similar to climate.

If you just want to look and investigate whether something that’s probably has good intentions like inclusivity. I understand it’s a noble cause, but if we don’t look at the outcomes, it’s very difficult to figure out whether this is having the intent that we want. And I started to realize that just speaking out about some of these things was really enough to get you labeled, you know, a certain degree bigotry term, whichever one it is, a denier or sometimes even a racist, because you’re having questions about the outcomes of some of these diversity equity inclusion policies.

And it was clear to me once I made my my Twitter thread, I was attacked by faculty members from all over the place, even UA, calling me a racist. They tried to link me to some anti-Semitic writings that happened on the sidewalk somewhere on campus. It just made it prove to me very clearly that if you have genuine questions and you see negative impacts on students, even bringing that up is, is is, you know, paradigm to being a heretic and you get ostracized and people call you out. And so that’s definitely one of the reasons that made it easier for me to start walking away from from this profession.

SE: Well, you’re not alone. And it’s unfortunate that this is happening. It’s happening in your industry. It’s happening to parents who are speaking out, you know, for their children in schools. So it’s unfortunate. But I do hope that this doesn’t push smart people like you completely out of science. Dr. Weiliki, thank you so much for being here.

Dr. Matthew M. Weilicki Homepage

Footnote:

Background   

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

It’s time to check out some of those whacky projection made in 2009 in the UK Climate Projections, published by DEFRA with the help of the Met Office.

Today I’ll look at sea levels:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adapting-to-climate-change-uk-climate-projections-2009

This was the headline projection:

The numbers are measured against the 1980-99 baseline, so the 2040 projection effectively equated to a rise of 3.6mm a year, increasing to 4.5mm till 2080.

There is little tide gauge data from the Thames estuary, but we can get a good idea of how this prediction panned out by looking at North Shields. As the land is sinking in the South East, the predicted rise at North Shields was slightly less, but the UKCP interface conveniently provides that projections at the latter as well:

https://ukclimateprojections-ui.metoffice.gov.uk/ui/home

The database confirms a projected rise at North Shields of 45mm between 2007 and 2021, 3.2mm a year.

However the actual data shows that sea levels have only risen by 13mm during that time. As the graph indicated, there is nothing unusual about either the 2007 or 2021 datapoints, and while sea levels can fluctuate up and down the overall trend is already well below the DEFRA projections.

https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?id=170-161

Far from admitting their error and making their projections more realistic, DEFRA and the Met Office have doubled down on their nonsense, and are now predicting sea level rise of 600mm in London, in their central case:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/approach/collaboration/ukcp/using-ukcp/ukcp-data

Hilary Benn, who presented the 2009 report as Secretary of State at DEFRA, used it as a lever for wide reaching policy changes. Given that these changes have been premised on a highly flawed report, it is time that public policy is amended accordingly.