Al Goreโ€™s 10-Year Deadline (5 years ago โ€ฆ)

By Robert Bradley Jr.ย 

โ€œToday I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 yearsโ€ฆ. the future of human civilization is at stake.โ€

โ€œScientists have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Pole] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.โ€

He said it. And he was wrong. Al โ€˜Doom-and-Gloomโ€™ Gore, the great climate exaggerator, has been at it since James Hansenโ€™s testimony 35-years ago, his Washington Post op-ed in 1989 (yesterdayโ€™s post), and his book Earth in the Balance (1992). And yet this man is the Godfather of COP28 this week in Dubai, the link from the past to the present. John Kerry may do Alโ€™s bidding, but Al himself is depressed over the prospects of the two-week CO2-rich confab. (He should be: fossil fuels are winning despite desperate government attempts to bribe producers and consumers.)

Excerpts from Goreโ€™s 15-year-old diatribe, Speech on Renewable Energy,โ€ follows:

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changesโ€ฆ.

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more โ€“ if more should be required โ€“ the future of human civilization is at stake.

I donโ€™t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneouslyโ€ฆ. The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse โ€“ much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer monthsโ€ฆ.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isnโ€™t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been ragingโ€ฆ. for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and thatโ€™s been worrying me.

Iโ€™m convinced that one reason weโ€™ve seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately โ€“ without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective โ€“ they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges โ€“ the economic, environmental and national security crisesโ€ฆ.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that weโ€™re holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of โ€œsolutions summitsโ€ with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, donโ€™t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels.

Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire worldโ€™s energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nationโ€™s problems, we need a new start.

Thatโ€™s why Iโ€™m proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. Itโ€™s not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans โ€“ in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But hereโ€™s whatโ€™s changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power โ€“ coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal โ€“ have radically changed the economics of energyโ€ฆ.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips โ€“ also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months โ€“ year after year, and thatโ€™s whatโ€™s happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. Iโ€™ve seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the worldโ€ฆ.

Of course, there are those who will tell us this canโ€™t be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo โ€“ the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, โ€œThe Stone Age didnโ€™t end because of a shortage of stones.โ€

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the worldโ€™s scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we donโ€™t act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the peopleโ€™s appetite for changeโ€ฆ.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. Thatโ€™s the best investment we can makeโ€ฆ.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the worldโ€™s agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists todayโ€ฆ. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? โ€ฆ.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not weโ€™ve simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutionsโ€ฆ. But Iโ€™ve begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approachโ€ฆ.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge โ€“ for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. Itโ€™s time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. Iโ€™m asking you โ€“ each of you โ€“ to join me and build this futureโ€ฆ.

Constructivist energy failure. Mid-course correction needed and aheadโ€ฆ.

The postย Al Goreโ€™s 10-Year Deadline (5 years ago โ€ฆ)ย appeared first onย Master Resource.

King Charles to open UN COP 28, embraces unscientific extreme narratives

Britainโ€™s King Charles arrives to meet the students at Heriot-Watt University Dubai, during the COP28 summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, November 30, 2023. Image Credits : Reuters

King Charlesโ€™ Dubai agenda reveals the unscientific acceptance of lines that women, youth, โ€œindigenousโ€ peoples, and island nations will be hardest hit by global warming and โ€œtraditionalโ€ indigenous knowledge stands โ€œalongside scientific knowledge to address the climate and nature crises.โ€

OFFICIAL BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY PRESS RELEASE:

The King will visit Dubai to attend COP28 UAE

Published 29 November 2023

His Majesty The King will visit Dubai from Thursday 30th November to Friday, 1st December 2023, to attend COP28 UAE, where His Majesty will address Heads of State, Heads of Government, and delegates at the Opening Ceremony. The visit is at the invitation of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates, and at the request of His Majestyโ€™s Government.

During the visit, The King will meet the President of the UAE and undertake a series of engagements in Dubai ahead of COP28. The King will have the opportunity to meet regional leaders, to support the UKโ€™s efforts to promote peace in the region, and to demonstrate His Majestyโ€™s strong interest in bringing together people from different faiths and backgrounds.

On Thursday, 30th November, His Majesty will meet students and graduates from across the Commonwealth. He will hear about green tech and sustainable innovations, celebrating entrepreneurial business and the younger generationโ€™s role in delivering climate and nature solutions.

The King will later join a Commonwealth and Nature reception hosted jointly by the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Circular Bioeconomy Alliance (CBA). His Majesty will meet global and Commonwealth indigenous leaders to talk about the role of using traditional knowledge alongside scientific knowledge to address the climate and nature crises, particularly in tackling the increased threat of devastating wildfires.

Afterward, His Majesty will meet female climate leaders working to address climate change and to hear about the particular risks that climate change poses to women and girls around the globe. The King will also meet representatives from Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

On the evening of Thursday, 30th November, The King will join His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan at a reception to launch the inaugural COP28 Business and Philanthropy Climate Forum. The reception, hosted by the COP28 Presidency in strategic partnership with the Sustainable Markets Initiative (SMI), will be attended by global Heads of State and Government, business CEOs, philanthropists, and heads of NGOs.

On Friday, 1st December, The King will join world leaders at the Opening Ceremony of the World Climate Action Summit at Expo City Dubai for COP28 UAE. His Majesty will join Heads of State and Heads of Government for the โ€˜family photoโ€™ and deliver an opening address at the Summit.

Background

For over 50 years, The King has championed action for a sustainable future. His Majesty believes that everyone has a role to play in tackling even the most complex environmental challenges facing our world. From Heads of State to young people and from chief executives to local community projects, the Kingโ€™s unique ability to bring people together has proved a powerful way to inspire solutions and motivate people and organisations at all levels and all around the world.

The King, as The Prince of Wales, previously delivered the opening address at the Opening Ceremony of COP26 in Glasgow in 2021 and COP21 in Paris in 2015.

The 28th Session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) will take place from 30th November to 12th December 2023 in Expo City Dubai.

Royal.UK

The postย King Charles to open UN COP 28, embraces extreme narrativesย appeared first onย CFACT.

WHO To Declare Climate Emergency? – In The Tankย #425

The Heartland Institute’s Donald Kendal, Jim Lakely, Justin Haskins, and Chris Talgo present episode 425 of the In The Tank Podcast.

With the global climate conference, COP28, starting this week, global warming rhetoric is being ramped up into high gear.

Last week, over 200 medical journals called on the World Health Organization to declare an “immediate emergency” on the topic of climate change.

Factor this rhetoric into the growing calls for the censorship of misinformation and you have yourself the recipe for overt authoritarianism.

Trudeau Climate Crusade Hits Albertaย Wall

From Science Matters

ย Byย Ron Clutz

Tyler Durden has the story at zerohedge Alberta Premier Defies Trudeau Carbon Agenda โ€“ Invokes Sovereignty Act.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

It is an action which multipleย red states in the USย undertaken:ย Blocking carbon controlsย ingrained in โ€œgreen powerโ€ initiativesย conjured by the federal government.

Now it appears the momentum has spread to Canada throughย Albertaโ€™s conservative leadershipย as Premier Danielle Smithย defies the Trudeau regimeย by invoking the provinceโ€™s recently drafted Sovereignty Act.

The Sovereignty Act is designed to giveย Albertaโ€™s legislative assemblyย the powerย to identify any federal programs or actions that violate Albertaโ€™s constitution,ย the government wouldย then refuse to implementย those programs.ย  The implementation of the act means that finally, an open dialogue on the existential threat of the UNโ€™s โ€œsustainable development goalsโ€ and Agenda 2030 has begun in Canada. ย 

The reasons for opposition to โ€œNet Zeroโ€ objectives have been repeated over and over again by political critics, economic critics and scientific critics alike. 

1.  Net zero as the UN defines it is impossible using existing green technologies with inefficient and costly power generation.

2.  Net zero proponents refuse in most cases to acknowledge the usefulness of nuclear power as a means to reduce reliance on oil and gas.

3.  Net zero would require perpetual authoritarian oversight of individual carbon emissions and probably population reduction in the near term.

4.ย  None of the above even mattersย because thereโ€™sย no concrete evidenceย whatsoeverย man-made carbon causes global warming.

In other words, the supposed crisis is a fraud and thereโ€™s no reason
for any nation, province or state to sacrifice their power grids.

Beyond the big con,ย stagflation has made carbon controls economically impossible. Aggressive price spikes since 2020 make gas, oil and coalย more importantย than ever inย maintaining basic services for the populace along with the needs of industry.ย Reducing available supply in the face of desperate demand would only fuel the fires of inflation further. Even Europe has been reverting back to โ€œvillainousโ€ energy sources like coal to keep things running.

When people face the possibility of freezing or starving there is little chance they are going to listen to unfounded claims of climate doomsday from a bunch of ultra-rich yacht sailing private jet-setting carbon-spewing hypocrite elites.

Seek and Ye Shallย Find

Fact-checking the fact-checkers

From Climate Scepticism

BYย MARK HODGSON

The Guardian has taken it upon itself to explore โ€œthe myths and realities surrounding EVsโ€. The heading to the article asks โ€œDo electric cars pose a greater fire risk than petrol or diesel vehicles?โ€ and I think we know the answer the Guardian will come up with. They start by telling us that the Luton Airport car park fire resulted in lots of speculation that the fire might have started in an electric vehicle. (Indeed, we at Cliscep speculated about it too, though we did โ€“ and continue to โ€“ keep open minds on the question). However, we are told that this โ€œtheory was quickly doused by the Bedfordshire fire service, which said the blaze appeared to have started in a diesel car.โ€ And so we see how this is going to pan out. The claim has been doused, but has it? The support for that claim is the fire service told us that the fire appeared to have started in a diesel car. So far as I am aware, nobody has yet definitively established that this is the case, even though the blaze occurred almost six weeks ago. The most recent discussion on the internet seems to be an article in the Daily Sceptic, which makes the following observations:

Was the Luton airport fire caused by an electric vehicle? The official line is that it was a diesel-powered vehicle. However, a video of the fire in its early stages has been noted by many on social media to appear to show a Range Rover Evoque ablaze on the passenger side at the front.

The Range Rover Evoque has mild hybrid EV (MHEV) models which have been recalled in at least one country because of a fault that caused the lithium ion battery located under the passenger seat to short and catch fire.

The Telegraphโ€˜s Allison Pearson notes there โ€œwas none of the thick black smoke you would expect with a diesel fireโ€.

It seems odd that no further details โ€“ such as confirmation of the make and model of the car โ€“ have yet been put into the public domain. Is that because they would confirm it was a hybrid and detract from the official โ€˜diesel vehicleโ€™ line?

It may be that it will ultimately be shown to have started in a diesel (or hybrid) car, but as of the time of writing, that isnโ€™t the case. There are no hard facts yest in the public domain. We simply donโ€™t yet know for sure one way or the other. So at this early stage, the lie is given to the Guardianโ€™s claim that it โ€œhas spoken to experts and looked for hard data where possible to address some of the most common criticisms of electric vehiclesโ€ฆโ€. It might have looked for hard data, but it relies on a statement that something appears to be the case to rubbish a negative story about EVs.

Still, the issues to be considered are fairly set out:

The claims about electric car fires fall into two broad categories. The first is that fires are more common in electric cars, while the second is that when fires break out, they are more damaging.

If electric cars do pose more of a fire risk than petrol or diesel, that would have a host of consequences. One could be a requirement for larger car park spaces to stop fires spreading, while the Conservative MP Greg Smith, who serves on the transport committee, said in July that EV owners should pay higher insurance premiums to cover the extra costs to firefighters.

And so itโ€™s obviously crucial to establish that EVs are less prone to spontaneous combustion than the internal combustion engine (ICE) alternative. In order to achieve this, we are treated to a claim by Colin Walker, the head of transport at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit think tank, to the effect that EVs are much, much less likely to set on fire than their petrol equivalent. He tells us (without evidence โ€“ or at least none that is cited in the article) that many, many fires in petrol and diesel cars โ€œjust arenโ€™t reportedโ€. If they arenโ€™t reported, how does he know about them? How does he know how many such fires there are? By definition, if his claim is correct, we lack hard data. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, by the way, isnโ€™t simply a โ€œthink tankโ€, as the Guardian would have it. Rather, itโ€™s a climate alarmist campaigning organisation, as its โ€œWho we areโ€ web page makes clear, with funding being provided by, inter alia, the European Climate Foundation, the Quadrature Climate Foundation, and (previously) the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, the Climate Change Collaboration, the Oak Foundation and the Tellus Mater Foundation. Mr Walker is no doubt sincere, his claim may be correct, but the claims made on his behalf by the Guardian provide absolutely no hard data to back up the assertion that ICE vehicles are far more likely to burst into flames than are EVs.

The next paragraph rather seems to make the case against Evs, rather than to offer a defence:

Fires can start in several ways. Car batteries store energy by moving lithium ions inside a battery cell but if cells are penetrated or if impurities from manufacturing errors cause short-circuits, then unwanted chemical reactions can start โ€œthermal runawayโ€, where cells heat up rapidly, releasing toxic and flammable gas. In petrol cars, fires can start via electrical faults causing sparks or if the engine overheats because of a fault in the cooling systems, potentially igniting flammable fuel.

So a battery fire in an EV can start โ€œthermal runawayโ€ โ€œreleasing toxic and flammable gasโ€ (sounds pretty alarming) while an electrical fault in a petrol car might โ€œpotentiallyโ€ ignite flammable fuel.

We turn to Norway for the next round in the defence of EVs. As is well known, Norway is a country where new EV sales represent a very high proportion of all new car sales. And so the Guardian assertion that โ€œ[i]n Norway, which has the worldโ€™s highest proportion of electric car sales, there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars, according to the directorate for social security and emergency preparednessโ€ seems pretty compelling. At least it does at first sight. Itโ€™s difficult to find detailed information from the internet (so intent are search engines on pushing pre-EV information at searchers) as to what proportion of cars in use are EVs and what proportion are ICEs. Statista offers some useful information , however. They suggest that in Norway in 2022 there were 1,135,538 diesel cars on the road; 822,133 petrol cars; 599,169 EVs; 348,969 โ€œotherโ€ and just over 200 running on gas or paraffin. At face value, then, the Guardian is on to something (assuming their statistics are correct โ€“ they provide no link to assist curious readers in checking it out), since the number of ICE fires are said to exceed EV fires by four or five to one, while the number of ICE vehicles on the road exceeds EVs by just three or four to one. However, even then, the comparison isnโ€™t direct, since most EVs are likely to be new or relatively new, while most ICE vehicles are likely to be relatively or very old. Old cars are more likely to develop faults (including faults leading to fires) than new ones are, so unless and until we have data covering older EVs, these statistics are interesting, but far from conclusive. At this stage, we are simply not comparing like with like. Incidentally, I have searched the website of the Norwegian Directorate for social security and emergency preparedness without success for the report to which the Guardian refers. It occurs to me that if the report dates from 2021 or earlier, then ICE cars would then have outnumbered EVs on Norwayโ€™s roads by four or five to one (2021), by between six and seven to one (2020), by around nine to one (2019) or by as much as twelve to one (2018), in which case, far from supporting the Guardianโ€™s claims, the report would actually undermine them. But the Guardian doesnโ€™t provide a link to the report, doesnโ€™t tell us its date (crucial information), and I canโ€™t find it. So much for hard data.

Next we are treated to a statistic from Sweden, which even the Guardian more or less acknowledges doesnโ€™t count for much:

The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency this year found that there were 3.8 fires per 100,000 electric or hybrid cars in 2022, compared with 68 fires per 100,000 cars when taking all fuel types into account. However, the latter figures include arson, making comparisons tricky.

I would go further. If the former number excludes arson and the latter number includes it (as appears to be the case), then citing the numbers is simply pointless. They establish nothing.

Next up are some numbers from Australia (the Guardian has apparently searched the world in its quest to prove that EVs are safe):

Australiaโ€™s Department of Defence funded EV FireSafe to look into the question. It found there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars.

I followed the link since one was provided in this case. While the findings are broadly in line with the claims made by the Guardian, they are considerably more tentative than the Guardianโ€™s phraseology suggests. Here is what EV FireSafeโ€™s website actually says:

Our intial [sic] research findings, based on global EV battery fires from 2010-2020, indicate a 0.0012% of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire.

While itโ€™s difficult to find a similar stat for internal combustion engine (ICE) passenger vehicles globally, a range of country-based reports we found suggest there is a 0.1% chance of an ICE vehicle catching fire.

Thatโ€™s potentially useful indicative information, but it hardly represents compelling hard data, and doesnโ€™t, so far as I can see, begin to justify the weight put on it by the Guardian. Furthermore, the website in question also stresses the problems with thermal runaway when EV batteries ignite; that an EV lithium traction battery burns hotter than an ICE vehicle; that EV fire behaviour is different and presents new challenges; that itโ€™s not smoke, itโ€™s a vapour cloud of highly flammable gases; that EV traction battery fires may require more resources; that The location of an EV battery makes fire harder to extinguish; that best practice is to allow a traction battery to burn out; and that EV traction battery fires can reignite, hours or days later.

Finally, the case for the defence of EVs concludes by telling us that Tesla โ€œsays the number of fires on US roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars,, the vast majority of which have petrol or diesel engines.โ€

Again, a link was provided, so I followed it. And while the claim made in the Guardian is broadly correct, it does misrepresent the facts in one possibly important respect โ€“ it wrongly claims to be comparing Tesla car fires with ICE car fires per mile travelled. In fact, Tesla compares Tesla car fires with โ€œdata from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and U.S. Department of Transportation shows that in the United States there is a vehicle fire for every 19 million miles traveled.โ€ Thatโ€™s vehicles, not cars, so presumably includes buses, lorries and all other vehicles using the roads. It also, by definition, presumably includes EV fires, if itโ€™s a database of all vehicle fires, so that will skew the figures somewhat, and will reduce the ratio from 1:11 to a smaller number, though admittedly perhaps not much smaller. The inclusion of vehciles other than cars in the federal data may or may not be relevant โ€“ I simply donโ€™t know. Also of potential relevance is how the fires occurred. Tesla make the point that:

In order to provide an apt comparison to NFPA data, Teslaโ€™s data set includes instances of vehicle fires caused by structure fires, arson, and other things unrelated to the vehicle, which account for some of the Tesla vehicle fires over this time period.

I concede that that is a pretty compelling statement. But we donโ€™t know how many of the ICE vehicle fires were the result of, say, multi-vehicle crashes, which might have led to fires. We also donโ€™t know how serious the ICE vehicle fires were compared to the Tesla fires. When a Tesla burns, it burns in a big way.

Then there is the fact that not every EV on the road is a Tesla, and increasingly it seems we can expect to see more and more Chinese EVs on the roads. Are their safety standards as high as Teslaโ€™s? I donโ€™t know. The Guardian doesnโ€™t follow up by considering these questions.

At the end of the Guardianโ€™s case for the defence, the reality is that we have been presented with very little meaningful hard data despite their claim to have looked for it. Perhaps there isnโ€™t much.

In fairness to the Guardian, they do also offer some of the case for the prosecution with a section of the article headed โ€œAny caveats?โ€. Here they acknowledge that EV fires โ€œcan be furious infernosโ€ and acknowledge โ€œthe ominous risks of โ€œvapour cloud explosions and rocket flamesโ€ when the gases burst out of cells.โ€ And there is a belated recognition of some of the negative findings of EV FireSafe, namely โ€œbattery fires require more water to put out, can burn almost three times hotter, and are more likely to reignite.โ€

The article concludes with a verdict, which was rather more balanced than I expected, albeit itโ€™s much kinder to EVs than my own verdict:

Despite the increased danger once a battery fire is burning, the probability of being caught in an EV fire appears overall to be much lower than for petrol or diesel cars, based on currently available data โ€“ although this could change as more people get electric cars.

Walker said it was possible that the prevalence of fires in EVs could increase as the average age of batteries on the roads increases. However, at this point, it appears that they would have to multiply by many times to be worse than internal combustion engines.

I am pleased to see the acknowledgement that as EVs age, the data could well become much more negative with regard to EV fires. However, the claim that ICE fire numbers are worse (by many times) than ICE fire numbers simply isnโ€™t borne out by the data provided in the article.

UN COP 28 is not a democracy

Voting is not how a UN climate conference operates.

By David Wojick

Reading the breathless Green coverage of the soon-to-be COP 28, the UN conference on climate change (CFACT is on the way!), I noticed a fundamental fallacy occurring endlessly. The analysts seem to assume that decision-making is democratic, such that what you need to pass a rule is a majority vote along the lines of Congress or Parliament.

The reality is extremely different. Every member Country has veto power. This dramatically changes what is possible. The analysts consistently miss this, especially by talking about possibilities that are, in fact, impossible.

A good example is a recent Washington Post article discussing the possibility that COP 28 will adopt a decision calling for the phasing out of not just coal but all fossil fuel use. They correctly report that some countries are all for this while others are strongly against it.

The presently crazy Biden U.S. is for it despite being the worldโ€™s biggest per capita user of fossil fuels. Russia is sanely against it as fossil fuel exports are their primary revenue source.

It is then consistently reported as a maybe yes, maybe no situation, like Congress debating a controversial Bill. The obvious reality is that absent a miracle, this measure has no chance whatsoever. It is, as the saying goes, dead on arrival.

An even better example is the ridiculous proposal from France and, again the U.S. that the member countries all agree to, somehow, stop the private financing of coal-fired power plants. Given that China and a number of big developing countries are betting their electrical future on coal this is clearly nothing more than political posturing. Even a miracle could not save this nonsense. But it is dutifully reported and analyzed as a real possibility. At least it is here in America and likely in France, too.

Wishful COP 28 thinking is not news nor analysis, but it fills the pages. The reality is that none of these big-ticket issues that we read so much about have the slightest chance of happening.

The one big issue where something might actually happen is loss and damage. But it will be small, hyped as huge.

Recall that at COP 27, there was reported to be a great advance, creating a Loss and Damage Fund. This is where the developed countries will pay the developing ones something toward their supposedly climate-caused losses and damages: crop losses and food damages, for example.

In reality, all that was created is a name, an idea if you like. A Committee was established to give, or at least propose, form and substance to this nebulous idea. That has not happened because the issues are overwhelming. After all, every county gets bad weather. The U.S. has said it will donate millions of dollars while developing countries are talking trillions.

However, this loss and damage concept is so vague that there is room for moving forward without being so specific or dangerous, that we start getting vetos.

For example, they might agree on where this little fund will be established. This is presently controversial but probably not a deal breaker because the developing countries want to see money moving.

Or they might all agree that the first, small funds go to the Least Developed Countries or maybe to the poorest Small Island States. This is a feel-good first step that makes the fund real. It carefully avoids the issue of who gets how much of them trillions.

This is how COP diplomacy works. Find little steps that everyone is willing to allow while pushing the big issues down the road. Then, report these small steps as big breakthroughs. Of course, there is truly serious green stuff going on, but that is at the national level. COPs are just a carnival.

So, as you watch yet another COP play out, keep in mind that the grand schemes endlessly reported and analyzed at great length are going nowhere fast. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or as they say in Texas, all hat, no cattle.

Be amused, not angry.

Stay tuned to CFACT for jovial coverage of the COP 28 circus.

The postย UN COP 28 is not a democracyย appeared first onย CFACT.

Energy In The Air

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach.

TL;DR: Ramanathan proposed that the โ€œgreenhouse effectโ€ could be measured as surface upwelling longwave minus top-of-atmosphere (TOA) upwelling longwave. However, this ignores the contributions to TOA upwelling longwave from 1) atmospheric absorption of solar energy, and 2) surface-to-atmosphere net energy transfer of latent heat of evaporation/condensation and sensible heat. In addition, it also ignores variation in the proportion of upwelling and downwelling energy loss from the atmosphere.


In the seminal paper โ€œThermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Ninoโ€ by V. Ramanathan & W. Collins, the authors proposed that we could measure the amplitude of the poorly-named โ€œgreenhouse effectโ€ directly. They said it was the upwelling longwave energy radiated by the surface, minus the amount leaving the top of the atmosphere. The difference, they reasoned, would be the amount of longwave radiation absorbed by the so-called โ€œgreenhouse gasesโ€ in the atmosphere, principally water vapor and carbon dioxide. And this method of measurement of the โ€œgreenhouse effectโ€ has become the general practice.

Sounds good, and Iโ€™ve used that definition without really thinking about it โ€ฆ but closer examination reveals that there are two problems with Ramanathanโ€™s method.

First, upwelling longwave radiation is not the only source of energy flowing through the atmosphere. Energy enters the atmosphere from three distinct sources.

  • Upwelling longwave energy from the surface thatโ€™s absorbed by the โ€œgreenhouseโ€ gases in the atmosphere.
  • Solar energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere.
  • Net of the latent (evaporation/condensation) and sensible heat transfer to-from the atmosphere.

Let me start with solar energy thatโ€™s absorbed by the atmosphere. Hereโ€™s a map of the global distribution of that energy flux.

Figure 1. Average absorption of solar energy by the atmosphere.

There are some interesting aspects of this. First, the major absorbers of solar radiation are clouds and aerosols. The cloudy areas in the deep tropics are an obvious case. Less obvious is India, eastern China, and eastern US, where aerosols increase the solar absorption.

You can also see how the clear dry air over the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps means that little solar energy is absorbed by the atmosphere in those areas.

The second source of energy flowing through the atmosphere is the sensible and latent heat loss from the surface to the atmosphere. Hereโ€™s a map of where thatโ€™s happening.

Figure 2. Latent and sensible energy loss from the surface to the atmosphere. Average of CERES data, Mar 2000 โ€“ Feb 2022.

The large red areas in the oceans south of the Equator are where there are few clouds and trade winds, so evaporative and sensible loss from the surface to the atmosphere is high.

Finally, we get to the third source of energy flow to the atmosphere. This is the absorption of upwelling radiation by โ€œgreenhouseโ€ gases. But how much is absorbed and how much passes through?

Unfortunately, the method of Ramanathan doesnโ€™t actually tell us. Remember that there are three sources of energy flowing to the atmosphere, not just one. So the TOA upwelling longwave flux is not a simple function of the surface upwelling longwave flux. Hereโ€™s a graph of surface and TOA upwelling longwave that demonstrates their differences.

Figure 3. Upwelling longwave radiation anomaly, surface and top-of-atmosphere (TOA).

While there are some similarities, obviously there is more going on than just the absorption of upwelling longwave from the surface.

Next, hereโ€™s a comparison of the changes in the three sources of energy flux to the atmosphere.

Figure 4. Change in sources of energy flux to the atmosphere

Now, this is curious. Upwelling longwave radiation from the surface has increased. Absorbed solar flux has increased, although only slightly. But latent/sensible surface-to-atmosphere heat transfer has dropped โ€ฆ go figure.

This demonstrates the first problem with Ramanathanโ€™s methodโ€”the amount of TOA longwave is a complex function, not just of surface temperature and CO2, but also of latent/sensible heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere, and of the atmospheric absorption of solar energy.

But that is not the only problem. Hereโ€™s the second one. The atmosphere loses energy both to the surface and to space. But the proportions of energy going up and down can change over time. Hereโ€™s a graph showing changes in atmospheric radiative energy losses to surface and to space.

Figure 5. Energy losses upwards and downwards from the atmosphere

Again, a most curious outcome. There are large swings in the energy loss to the surface and smaller swings in energy loss to space. But around 2015, there was a big shift, with much more energy going downwards to the surface. Why? No clue. I canโ€™t even guess at what controls how much atmospheric energy flux goes out to space versus how much goes down to the surface. What would determine that?

Net result of all of this?

Well, I fear Ramanathanโ€™s method is simply not valid. Thereโ€™s no reason to assume that changes in the TOA upwelling longwave radiation are a result of changes in greenhouse gas absorption of surface radiation. They are also a function of atmospheric solar absorption and latent/sensible surface-to-atmosphere heat transfer.

In closing, I fear I donโ€™t see any easy way around this. Seems to me that to measure it directly, weโ€™d need a long record of spectrum-resolved gridded satellite-observed radiation data so we could tell by frequency which upwelling radiation is directly from the surface and which is from the atmosphere โ€ฆ and unfortunately, we donโ€™t have that.

Settled science.

Here on our hillside, blessed rain. My very best wishes to everyone,

w.

PSโ€”Please quote the exact words youโ€™re discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.

COP28 pushing net-zero meat plan in Dubai

โ€œThe worldโ€™s most-developed nations will be told to curb their excessive appetite for meat as part of the first comprehensive plan to bring the global agrifood industry into line with the Paris climate agreement. The global food systemsโ€™ road map to 1.5C is expected to be published by the United Nationsโ€™ Food & Agriculture Organization during the COP28 summit next monthโ€ฆThe United Arab Emirates has called on governments to sign a declaration committing to include food transformation into their national reduction and adaptation plans. The COP28 summit will have a Food, Agriculture, and Water Day on Dec. 10, a first-ever day dedicated to food systems, which encompass anything from how food is grown, processed, distributed, consumed, or thrown away. Catering for the summit will be two-thirds plant-based.โ€ โ€” Bloomberg Climate

In Episode 398 of District of Conservation, Gabriella dishes on her Giving Tuesday picks, what coverage to look out for at COP 28 in Dubai, and Exxon Mobilโ€™s big bet on lithium in southwest Arkansas. Tune in to learn more.

Listen on Apple Podcasts

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

SHOW NOTES

โ Chart: 70,000 traveling to Dubai for COP28โ 

โ EU lawmakers urge COP28 climate summit to take aim at fossil fuelsโ 

โ UAE reportedly planned to use COP28 climate summit to lobby for oil and gas dealsโ 

โ COP28โ€™s gender agenda: Spotlighting gender-responsive strategies for accelerated climate action โ 

โ 

Bloomberg: Eat Less Meat Is Message for Rich World in Foodโ€™s First Net Zero Planโ 

โ FAO at COP28: Agrifood systems solutions to shape climate agendaโ 

โ ExxonMobil drilling first lithium well in Arkansas, aims to be a leading supplier for electric vehicles by 2030โ 

โ Oil Giant Exxon Betting On A Green Future

Gabriella Hoffman

Gabriella Hoffman is a Media Strategist and Award-Winning Outdoor Writer. She hosts the “District of Conservation” podcast and CFACT’s original YouTube series “Conservation Nation.”

Learn more about her work at http://www.gabriellahoffman.com

The postย COP28 pushing net-zero meat plan in Dubaiย appeared first onย CFACT.

ZEV Mandate Cannot Be Enforced With Foreign Manufacturers, Sayย DfT

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-path-to-zero-emission-vehicles-by-2035

The Governmentโ€™s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate specifically refers to motor manufacturers โ€“ though there seems to be some ambiguity between โ€œsoldโ€ and โ€œproducedโ€.

However there is no information provided as to how non-UK manufacturers will treated, and how foreign companies could be forced to meet the mandate under UK law. I there FOId the DfT, and they sent me this response:

So, as I suspected, there is no way the Government can actually enforce its mandate with non-UK manufacturers.

Suppose BMW missed its target by 50,000 cars. At ยฃ15000 per car, thatโ€™s a penalty of ยฃ750 million โ€“ which they clearly are not going to pay, no matter how much the Government huffs and puffs.

And if the Government attempted to restrict market access, I suspect there would be an almighty row with the EU. It is one I also suspect the Government would lose in the European courts.

This is particularly relevant given that German manufacturers are hoping to continue focussing on ICEs, now that the EU has an exemption for โ€œzero carbon fuelsโ€.

But also note this section:

It would be easy for European manufacturers to bypass the mandate, simply by pre-registering cars for 3 months before exporting them. By doing so, they would easily undercut domestic manufacturers, who would have to include the cost of the mandate in the price of their ICEs.

It seems naive in the extreme for the Government to just assume that BMW, Renault and all the rest would willingly cave in to UK demands. But that just about sums up the whole lunacy of Net Zero.

Maybe legal beagles out there might check my logic and see if Iโ€™ve missed anything.