Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
In the most recent L A Times article hyping “the hottest October on record” the Times can’t seem to get it right in understanding the critical differences between “average temperature anomaly” and “maximum absolute temperature” data.
The Times article references the global average temperature anomaly graphic noted below which shows the October 2023 global value.
NOAA has also released its October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperatureanomaly outcome of 1.35 F (shown below – degrees F on the left hand scale) which climate alarmists have ignored and instead erroneously hyped the global wide October average temperature anomaly outcome as representing the maximum absolute temperature that applies to the Contiguous U.S. region.
The NOAA October 2023 Contiguous U.S. average temperatureanomaly value is only the 7th highest average anomaly value measured with prior year measurements for years 2016 (3.44 F), 2015 (2.72 F), 2021(2.29 F), 2014 (2.23 F), 2007 (1.85 F) and 2010 (1.46 F) all exceeding the October 2023 measured averagetemperature anomaly result.
The L A Times article shown below once again misunderstands and misuses (as discussed in a prior WUWT article found here) the critical difference (yet again) between average temperatureanomaly data and absolute maximum temperature data by erroneously claiming that the October 2023 average temperatureanomaly represents the “the hottest October on record” (note the Times articles photo caption) without understanding that such claims can only be determined by use of absolute maximum temperature data versus average temperatureanomaly data.
Average temperature anomaly data represents a measure of the statistical difference between a specific month’s average temperature and the long-term average temperature of that same months’ prior measurements over a defined period of years.
Average temperature anomaly data does not represent maximum absolute temperature values with these latter measurements being required to support claims of “the hottest October on record” as hyped by climate alarmists.
The global wide average temperature anomaly data represent the combined average of hugely varying global regional average temperature anomaly values that cover the entire earth’s surface with about 70% of that surface being over the world’s oceans and about 30% being over the far-flung continents which are separated by tens of thousands of miles.
The land area of the contiguous U.S. region represents less than 1.9 % of the earth’s surface and lies between a specific and defined region of latitude (about 25.84 degrees N to 49.38 degrees N) and longitude (about 66.96 degrees W to 124.67 degrees W) in the northern hemisphere.
Attempting to utilize a global wide average temperature anomaly value to determine what absolute maximum temperature outcomes occurred in various defined regional global areas is absurd and invalid.
If the L A Times wants to address “the hottest October on record” it needs to use absolute maximum temperature data records instead of average temperature anomaly data.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. October maximum temperature data for the period 1895 to 2023 (shown below ) clearly establishes that October 2023 was only the 94th highest October maximum temperature out of 129 recorded maximum temperatures with the highest ever measured October valueoccurring in 1963.
Looking at NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data for all months between 1895 and 2023, as shown below, establishes that the October 2023 maximum temperature was only the 867th maximum temperature month out of 1546 recorded maximumtemperature months.
If the L A Times wants to make claims of “the hottest month on record” then it must use absolute maximum temperature data to do so and stop erroneously using invalid global average temperature anomaly data to falsely support its flawed “the hottest month on record” claims.
The science about climate change is settled, right? We’re reassured by the media again and again that there is almost complete unanimity when it comes to the question of whether changes in the climate are caused by humans. And we’re also told there’s so much consensus that anyone who says otherwise isn’t a real scientist, but a “climate change skeptic” just trying to muddy the pristine waters of settled science. In this episode of America Uncovered, we look at the sun’s role in global warming, why so many human-caused-climate-change proponents don’t want to look at this data, and how they’re trying to discredit climate scientists who are looking at factors that question the human-caused climate-change narrative.
Transcript
For those who prefer to read, the Transcript is below in italics with my bolds and added images.
The UN and prominent scientific organizations say the science is settled. No one can dispute that climate change is mainly caused by humans. Those who question it are insulted and shunned. Which is exactly the way the scientific method is supposed to work.
Welcome to America Uncovered. I’m Chris Chappell. Everywhere you look these days, it seems there’s someone pushing “the narrative.” America is irredeemably racist . Christopher Columbus was evil. Pineapple on pizza is gross . Wrong! Its sweet tanginess is a great counterbalance to the salt and acidity of the sauce. Refine your palates, you swine.
Journalists push narratives all the time, but so do scientists. Now, there’s this naive notion that scientists are above pushing narratives, because all they do is look at provable facts. But that couldn’t be further from the truth, especially for complex topics where the facts aren’t always so clear cut.
Look no further than the climate change debate. The most influential scientific organizations make it sound like it is a fact supported almost unanimously by the scientific community that climate change is mostly man-made. Which should immediately make you start questioning things, since no community unanimously believes anything. If they did, then 10 out of 10 dentists would recommend Crest toothpaste .
Just look at how the UN presents the topic. According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2023 report, “Human activities are responsible for global warming” by increasing greenhouse gasses. “It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” In other words, don’t question it! You *have* to accept that humans are the driving factor for climate change. There’s not supposed to be debate in science. That’s why we still believe the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. That science was settled centuries ago!
This type of messaging has had a profound impact on public policy all over the world. Billions of dollars have gone into addressing climate change and studying its effects. The narrative about man-made climate change is so loud and pervasive that CNN can ask, “why are we still debating climate change?” and reasonably expect readers to say, “yeah!”
In reality, though, it’s a lot more complicated than that. I’ve debunked the “97% of scientists agree on man-made climate change” narrative in a previous episode. The reality is, there’s no consensus on how large of a role human activity plays in climate change or even how climate is changing.
How they invented the “97% of scientists agree” meme.
Now, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again—I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I’m not taking sides on the climate change debate either. I’m not necessarily dismissing the idea that mankind is driving climate change, but I’m not going to say that everything’s settled, because it’s not.
Uh oh, I just said something nuanced. You know what that means: Goodbye, YouTube ad revenue. And that is exactly the problem! It’s not very popular to question the climate change narrative, especially when billions of dollars are on the line. But there are some scientists who question the narrative anyway. One of the most prominent voices is Wei-Hock—or Willie—Soon , a Malaysian Astrophysicist and aerospace engineer who used to work at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Soon is known for promoting the hypothesis that the sun may have more to do with current climate change than human activity. He’s not necessarily saying that there’s no such thing as man-made climate change, but he is very vocal about how the UN reportedly suppresses the sun’s role in climate change. I should have known the sun was diabolical. After all, it kills me every time I play Super Mario 3.
Over the years, Soon’s research has been attacked by other scientists and the mainstream media. Carbon Brief released an explainer pushing back against the idea that the sun is responsible for recent climate change. Slate said that “[Soon’s] science has been refuted.” Because “The science is in, it’s extremely clear, and the consensus among climate scientists is solid.” 10 out of 10 scientists agree!
The Union of Concerned Scientists, the Imperial College London, the World Meteorological Organization, and a whole bunch more organizations all say the same thing. NASA is especially adamant about shutting down the sun theory. In its explainer, NASA says, “The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades.”
Okay, but what about when it chases you through the desert levels? Explain that, science! NASA and other scientific organizations argue that there isn’t any increase in solar energy reaching the planet. “So, there is a line, and the scientific community is well in agreement. According to NASA, scientists agree that the solar cycle is not driving the changes in Earth’s climate that we’re currently seeing. If we saw solar radiation increasing for a long period of time, we could see those effects on our climate, but the changes between solar cycles are pretty small and not able to drive the drastic changes we’ve seen over the last few decades.”
Plus, if there were so many solar rays, then how come we don’t have a real life Fantastic Four, hm? Science. Settled. Keep an eye on NASA. There’s a reason why NASA in particular is vocal in debunking the sun theory, which I’ll get into later in this episode.
Now, that’s how science works. One scientist puts out research, and other scientists challenge the results. But apparently, refuting Soon’s science wasn’t enough. The scientific community and the mainstream media went after Soon personally, and not always in the most honest of ways.
Scientists and the mainstream media have attacked Soon’s research on the sun’s role in climate change, but they’ve also attacked Soon, and it can be a bit disingenuous. For example, since 2011, the environmentalist nonprofit Greenpeace has pushed the idea that Soon’s research was funded by the fossil-fuel industry and suggested that Soon improperly concealed his funding sources in one of his publications.
But that’s misleading. According to The Heartland Institute, “As a working scientist… Soon had no authority to sign a research contract to receive a grant, let alone to decide and dictate the terms of such contracts.” Who did have the authority? Soon’s employer. “Dr. Soon and other working scientists like him are paid by the Smithsonian, not by the external funder, to carry out those duties. Simply put, Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian to conduct research paid for by external grants obtained by the Smithsonian.” So, if true, it would have been the Smithsonian that accepted money from the fossil-fuel industry.
Meanwhile, The Union of Concerned Scientists suggests that Soon’s work was part of a broader pattern of deception by fossil fuel companies. And as for the mainstream media? Well, they have disdainfully called Soon a climate skeptic. The problem is, Soon isn’t the only scientist asking questions. In 2021, Soon, along with almost 2 dozen other scientists from all over the world, published a study on the Institute of Physics Publishing asking, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” They called it “an ongoing debate.”
It’s a pretty dense read. But to summarize, the study points to solar radiation on the Earth’s atmosphere as the driver of global warming and cites dozens of other studies that point to the sun—not human activity—as the primary driver of climate change. The study also argues that the way the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that climate change was man-made was flawed. It ignored data, such as NASA’s sun-monitoring satellite data, which the authors argued would’ve countered the man-made climate change narrative.
According to the lead study author, Ronan Connolly , “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion.” Climate is seriously complex, and there’s a lot of data to consider, so this could just be a mistake, but Connolly doesn’t seem to think so. “In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative.”
This didn’t sit well with most climate change scientists. One 2022 study tried to debunk the sun theory as “erroneous”. Those authors pretty much argued it was a waste of time that could be better used on areas of “legitimate scientific uncertainty”. However, Soon and various other scientists came out with three new studies earlier this year that say otherwise.
This one looked at datasets that the UN didn’t look into to conclude that the UN underestimated the sun’s role in global warming. This included data from NASA’s satellites. Which is a pretty big flex, using data from an organization that doesn’t agree with you to prove your point. Their study also argues that the UN underestimated how weather stations are impacted by urbanization, which generates heat from human activity.
It’s similar to the conclusions made by this study, which specifically addressed the 2022 study that criticized the sun theory. This other study specifically compared Japan and the US to show the impact that urbanization has on weather station data collection. So they’re essentially saying that the way they collect data was flawed, and so were their conclusions.
Now, the studies aren’t completely dismissing the idea that climate change is man-made. They’re simply saying that there isn’t enough data to determine whether global warming is mostly man-made, mostly natural, or a combination of both. Which is why Willie Soon is one of thousands of scientists who have signed the World Climate Declaration, which says that there is no climate emergency…and that “natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.”
One of the scientists involved in the research said the analysis “opens the door to a proper scientific investigation into the causes of climate change.” But it turns out certain scientists are absolutely livid about these studies. They want to slam that door shut , barricade it, and put up a “get off my lawn” sign.”
Some scientists are angry about the multiple studies done by Soon and his colleagues regarding the sun’s role in climate change, and they’re making their displeasure known. But the way these scientists speak to other scientists makes them sound like fourth-grade bullies rather than professional researchers.
For example, Atmospheric science professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University —The guy famous for what’s called the hockey stick graph—Referred to the authors of one of the studies as “a group of climate denier [clowns]”. Which is ridiculous, because clowns aren’t climate deniers. They’re better than anyone at reducing emissions by carpooling with 30 of them in a single vehicle .
Mann also apparently sees anyone whom he classifies as a climate denier of being “truly awful human beings”. I don’t remember the part of the scientific method where you call names on anyone who questions you. Oh wait, there it is. Many climate scientists are quick to dismiss studies that don’t align with the climate change narrative.
For example, Gareth Jones of the UK’s Meteorologist Office called a review that disagreed with him “nonsense.” Jones also seems to enjoy smearing people like the editor of the journal Climate, saying that he “has a bit of a reputation, so much so that other climate contrarians distance themselves from him”.
Then there’s Gavin Schmidt, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He mocked one of the authors, calling his work “BS” . Schmidt also said, “The only point of this paper (which every climate denier and their dog has jumped onto), is to launder dirty ‘science’ into a clean made-for-Fox meme.”
Dirty science? Is that like Weird Science if it was rated R instead of PG-13? Schmidt is even using a Freedom of Information Act request to demand one of the editor’s emails with relevant scientists. This seems a lot like intimidation to try to coerce uniformity in the scientific community, rather than allowing for disagreement to try to get to the facts.
Climatologist Judith Curry at Georgia Institute of Technology told The Epoch Times that “The response by Schmidt, Mann, and others, particularly with regard to the FOIA request regarding editorial discussions on this paper, reflects their ongoing attempts to control the scientific as well as public dialogue on climate change”.
If you ask me, this also reflects just how arrogant people in the scientific community have become.
For example, the UN’s under-secretary-general for global communications last year had the audacity to say that the UN “owns” the science. She even admitted that the UN was working with Google to manipulate search results! “We partnered with Google for example. If you Google climate change, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we googled climate change we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive, you know. We own the science, and we think that the world, you know, should know it.”
“Own the science”? How arrogant do you have to be to believe that you “own” science? What, are they gonna have a garage sale and try to get people to buy the theory of gravity from them, since they “own” it? It’s this kind of “ownership” that allows for organizations like the UN to pre-emptively silence dissent with very little regard for both free speech or even science itself.
You’d be very, very mistaken if you believe that scientists are above politics and bias or that they should not be questioned. Let’s not forget that politicians and scientists said that there was zero evidence Covid came from a lab leaks…and that lockdowns were the best way to deal with the pandemic, despite warnings to the contrary.
The people pushing those narratives thought that they couldn’t possibly be wrong, but in hindsight, they look pretty foolish. Trying to coerce people to a consensus of what you think is the science, isn’t real science. Real science would acknowledge that scientists don’t always have all the data and examine different approaches with professionalism.
Of course there are going to be people who believe in disinformation. But what’s to stop organizations as powerful as the UN from spreading their own disinformation? If we have scientists who are trying to spin facts that favor corporate interests in fossil fuels, tobacco, and fast food, then don’t you think the same could happen for the interests of climate change activists?
People will spread disinformation about anything. Even things that are obviously false, like Pineapple on pizza being anything less than amazing. Like climate change scientists, YouTube loves restricting debate and discussions about things it finds too controversial, such as climate change.
I have lost count of the number of times the Law of Unintended Consequences has kicked in where climate change mitigation measures are concerned. Today’s example has been known about for a while, but an Observer/Guardian article has drawn it to my attention again, so let’s take a look.
The Climate Group is one of many “green” pressure groups, which seek to impose its own vision on the rest of us. Its “about” page tells us that it is an “international non-profit” founded twenty years ago, with offices in London, New York, New Delhi, Amsterdam and Beijing (non-profit obviously does not necessarily equate to being poor). They claim to work closely with state and regional governments, and they spout the usual stuff about the need to reduce carbon emissions (by 50% in the next ten years), the 2020s having to be “the Climate Decade”, the necessity of capping global warming at 1.5C, etc., etc.
We are told (elsewhere on their website) that in 2015 they launched “a global call to action for all public lighting around the world to be light emitting diode (LED) by 2025”. This campaign was undertaken in partnership with Signify (formerly Philips Lighting) who, by happy coincidence, presumably stood to gain financially if the campaign achieved its objectives. The purpose (apart from making lots of money for Signify) was to reduce CO2 emissions, because LED lights use less energy than their predecessors.
Four years after the campaign was launched, the Engineering and Technology website supplied an update regarding the state of play with UK Councils. We learned that Councils were moving rapidly towards LED lighting, but that the cost of installation was putting some off. The 2025 target date was implicit in the report. Certainly, my own Council replaced our street lamps with new LED lighting some time ago.
Two years later the BBC was still reporting enthusiastically on the “progress” being made: “Essex County Council leader makes LED street lights pledge”. We learned that they were spending (the BBC called it “investing” – note for editors: costs associated with the net zero programme are never to be described as costs, but always as investments) £26.8 million on the programme, and a target date of 2024 for completion of the project. Within a year the BBC was again reporting about Essex County Council, this time with regard to the £100 million budget deficit it would be facing within three years. Hey ho.
That wasn’t the only irony to be spotted in BBC reporting of these issues. Just a few months after its enthusiastic report about Essex County Council’s ambitious plans for LED street lighting, the BBC reported again (“Light pollution from street lamps linked to insect loss”) on the subject. This time the story wasn’t quite so positive
Scientists say light pollution may be contributing to “worrying” declines in insects seen in recent decades.
In a UK study, artificial street lights were found to disrupt the behaviour of nocturnal moths, reducing caterpillars numbers by half.
Modern LED streetlights appeared to have the biggest impact.
Which brings us to today’s report in the Observer on the website it shares with is sister paper, the Guardian: “How blue-rich LEDs harm people and the environment”. Now we are told:
The rush to transition to LED lighting resulted in a botched job: councils throughout the UK installed light in our public buildings and spaces, and in our streets, that was far too intense and contained too much blue light. This is precisely the wavelength of light that most disrupts the circadian rhythm –not just sleep but almost every other physiological process – in humans and the rest of the natural world.
A study by Dark Sky International summarises the available science on light pollution. It questions whether the transition to LED street lighting provides any meaningful environmental benefit, and talks of “greenwash”. There’s no doubt about the harm caused to the overall health and wellbeing of people, with the lives of light-sensitive people being devastated, and by the disruption of natural ecosystems. It has also exacerbated light pollution due to the way blue light scatters and creates more “sky glow” – the smudgy veil of artificial light that obscures the stars.
Blue-rich LEDs have made our world uglier, changing the colour of our towns and cities from a soft orange glow to a harsh, gloomy glare. Light doesn’t just illuminate our surroundings, it creates the very world that we perceive and interacts with life in profound and subtle ways. We need to use it with great care and caution.
“Great care and caution”. Words which, all too sadly, don’t seem to apply where someone claims greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced, and certainly not if there’s money to be made by the climate-industrial complex. Will we ever learn?
Misplaced faith in private sector solutions delays the redistribution of trillions from developed countries and multilateral institutions.
In response to the looming trillion-dollar global climate finance shortfall, a broad array of policymakers, international bureaucrats, environmentalists, and financial institutions have called for the urgent scaling up of private climate investments.
The logic of private finance mobilisation starts by recognising that developing countries will need climate finance “amounting to US$5.8–5.9 trillion up until 2030”. In the face of such eye-watering sums, private finance offers an enticing solution. By leveraging comparatively small government financing into substantial private investments, governments and international organisations can turn “billions into trillions”, sidestepping the problem facing developed countries of how to justify domestically the global redistribution of trillions of dollars.
Private finance is clearly no panacea for the climate crisis. It is no wonder that the developing countries have long called for far more drastic levels of public and multilateral financing. Rather than seeking to pursue global economic justice alone, developing countries have been acutely aware that trillions of developed country government dollars need to be put on the table. If developing country financing asks are honoured, US$5.8–5.9 trillion would be well within reach. But the challenge remains getting developed countries on board. Proposals such as political economist Dani Rodrik’s “bridging compact” hold some promise, although any equivalent global consensus could only emerge following the recognition that a private finance-centred approach doesn’t provide a workable alternative.
And they wonder why we call them climate communists.
Imagine what a rushed removal of $5.8-5.9 trillion from the economies of wealthy nations would do to schools, hospitals, roads, policing, all the things which matter to ordinary people?
The funniest part, China, which still insists it is a developing country, would be a net recipient of a large slice of this pie, which would have to be funded by borrowing money from China.
I believe the fake climate crisis movement is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of its own absurdity.
Back when climate advocates were stringing everyone along with the nonsense claim that renewables were affordable and would bring down energy bills, people accepted the falsehoods. The current green Aussie government won office on the back of a claim their modest green investments would bring down energy bills.
I don’t think anyone serious still believes the nonsensical claim that renewables are cheap.
Wood burners are a more expensive way to heat homes than gas boilers or heat pumps, research shows.
A study found that as well as causing significant health and environmental dangers for the home’s occupants and their neighbours, it is at least 15% more costly to heat a home using a wood burner rather than a gas boiler.
Rachel Pidgeon, of the charity Impact on Urban Health, which focuses on health inequalities in cities and which funded the study, said air pollution from wood burning in the UK had doubled over the past decade, with serious consequences for people’s health.
“This research dispels the myth that wood burning is a cheaper energy alternative whilst shining a light on the toxic effect it has on the air we breathe,” she said. “It’s vital that urban communities understand the connection between burning and the air pollution it creates.”
There was a 40% increase in sales of wood burners between 2021 and 2022. Research shows that more affluent people, attracted by the aesthetic appeal of a fire, are driving that increase.
However, a growing body of evidence highlights the environmental and health damage caused, with scientists saying that people who burn wood are subjecting themselves – and their neighbourhoods – to high levels of the most dangerous small particulate pollution, PM2.5, which can work its way deep into the body, causing a range of severe health issues including heart disease, strokes, asthma and cancer.
Last year, a study from Prof Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, found that even “eco design” wood burning stoves produced 450 times more toxic air pollution than gas central heating, while older stoves, now banned from sale, produced 3,700 times more.
Another study found that wood burning in homes produced more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK.
The latest research, carried by Global Action Plan for Impact on Urban Health, found that the perception among the public was often that wood burners at least offered a cheaper source of energy.
The pollution from wood burners has always been obvious to sane people. After all our ancestors decided hundreds of years ago that it probably was not a particularly good idea, though an improvement on burning dung I suppose.
But the climate change fundamentalists decided a long time ago that CO2 emissions were a much more important consideration than people’s actual health.
“Siemens Gamesa will continue to meet our obligations for the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project. Siemens Gamesa discontinued plans to build and operate an offshore blade facility in Virginia, as development milestones to establish the facility could not be met,” a spokesperson for the Spanish-German wind turbine company said in a statement.
The $200 million project, first announced in October 2021, was expected to create 310 jobs in Portsmouth — and also was viewed as a major step toward creating a U.S. offshore wind manufacturing hub in Hampton Roads. The factory was set to support Dominion Energy’s $9.8 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project 27 miles off the coast of Virginia Beach, and Siemens Gamesa had leased 80 acres at the port’s Portsmouth terminal next to 72 acres leased by Dominion for staging and preassembly of the foundations and turbines for the wind farm.
When completed, the 2.6-gigawatt, 176-turbine wind farm will power 660,000 homes, according to the Richmond-based Fortune 500 utility. Last week, Dominion passed critical hurdles to start construction as planned in the second half of 2024, with a 2026 delivery date. The first foundation posts, or monopiles, for the wind turbines began arriving at Portsmouth Marine Terminal in late October.
The Port of Virginia was notified several weeks ago that the Siemens Gamesa project was not going to proceed, and Siemens Gamesa honored the port’s termination fee, according to Aubrey Layne, board chair for the Virginia Port Authority, which oversees the Port of Virginia.
“Obviously from the economic development perspective for the state, that’s a disappointment,” Layne said Friday. “While we are disappointed, it doesn’t impact our ability to move forward in terms of how we would use the facility. [We’re] more saddened by the fact that it did not work out for offshore wind development with them, and we’ll see if somebody else steps in their place.”
“This announcement has no impacts on our project,” Dominion spokesperson Jeremy Slayton said Friday. “Due to the timing of our project, the proposed facility was not scheduled to manufacture our blades.”
Components for Dominion’s project are being manufactured at another Siemens Gamesa facility in Europe, where the company is making the turbines, consisting of blades, nacelles and hubs.
“We have confidence in Siemens Gamesa, a turbine vendor with decades of experience as the global leader in wind turbine technology,” Slayton said. Dominion locked in the costs and production contract early. Siemens Gamesa made the pieces for the two pilot turbines currently operating off the coast, which Slayton noted “are exceeding expectations” since becoming operational in 2020.
Asked how the cancelled project will impact regional plans for Hampton Roads to become an East Coast manufacturing hub for offshore wind operations, Layne said the port will continue to work with state and local economic development officials to develop the property. “We’ve got other uses for it, so we’re gonna be a good partner,” he said.
The Hampton Roads Alliance also weighed in on the potential impact to Hampton Roads.
“As the offshore wind industry shifts its focus from Europe to the United States, changes in the scope of emerging projects bring with it changes in supplier demand,” Doug Smith, president and CEO of the alliance, said in a statement. “Just last week, however, Dominion was granted approval to build the largest offshore wind farm in America off the coast of Hampton Roads. In addition, the City of Norfolk was awarded a $39 million grant to work with the Miller Group to turn Fairwinds Landing into an offshore wind logistics facility. These announcements put Hampton Roads in a better position than ever to serve as America’s East Coast offshore wind logistics and manufacturing hub and to create thousands of jobs over the next decade.”
Heavy headwinds
However, Siemens Gamesa has had major economic difficulties in recent months stemming from malfunctioning turbine parts.
The company scrapped its profit guidance in late June, citing a “substantial increase in failure rates of wind turbine components” at its wind division, CNBC reported in July, and in a single day in June, Siemens Energy’s stock fell by 37%. Specifically, the problems involve turbine platforms, rotor blades and main bearings, Reuters reported. And two weeks ago, Siemens Energy said it was in talks with the German government to secure financial assistance to finish future large projects.
Other wind energy companies have also seen difficulties in recent months, indicating a wider problem in the industry. On Tuesday, a Philadelphia news channel reported that Ørsted, the Danish firm that built Dominion’s first two offshore turbines in 2020, is trying to get out of a $300 million payment to New Jersey after canceling two offshore wind farm projects in southern New Jersey. In late October, Ørsted said it had booked an impairment charge of more than $4 billion against its U.S. offshore portfolio, while announcing its decision to scrap its two New Jersey projects.
Layne said he and port officials have been in regular contact with Siemens Gamesa about the reported turbine issues and concerns with the wind industry.
Slayton said Dominion still plans to help establish a domestic offshore wind supply chain in Hampton Roads, saying that the region is ideally situated to capitalize on the wind industry.
“The offshore wind supply chain in the U.S. is in the development stages,” he noted. “We have that tangible evidence that offshore wind is happening in Virginia, and we are moving forward full steam ahead to start that offshore construction in May of next year.”
Siemens Energy, facing significant losses, is in talks for up to 15 billion euros in guarantees, with the German state covering 80% of the initial funding.
Siemens AG shares have plummeted over 70% since mid-June, with the company abandoning its 2023 profit outlook due to challenges in its wind turbine unit.
The UK government is set to offer higher subsidies for offshore wind projects, following a previous auction where developers backed out due to low pricing, indicating growing financial strains in the renewable energy sector.
Reuters reports the German government, Siemens AG, and other parties will provide billions of euros in project-related guarantees to support Siemens AG’s struggling wind turbine division. This financial assistance comes just weeks after the company warned about mounting losses amid a meltdown across wind and solar industries.
Three people familiar with the talks said that Siemens Energy’s top shareholder, Siemens AG, with a 25.1% stake, is prepared to provide some guarantees. Details are still scant, and nothing has been decided, as an agreement needs to be formally drawn up and supported by all stakeholders.
Last month, Reuters said Siemens Energy was discussing state guarantees with the German government.
Here’s more on the report:
As a result, Siemens Energy fears it will struggle to secure guarantees from banks, and has approached the government and Siemens to obtain a guarantee framework, business news weekly WirtschaftsWoche said.
The weekly, which first reported the talks along with Spiegel magazine, said Siemens Energy is seeking up to 15 billion euros in guarantees.
The German state would assume liability for 80% of an initial 10 billion euro funding tranche, while banks would be liable for the remaining 20%, WirtschaftsWoche said.
A Siemens AG spokesperson said the company remained in “very constructive talks to define the best possible solution in the interests of all parties involved.”
Siemens Energy shares in Germany have crashed more than 70% since mid-June as it has abandoned its 2023 profit outlook after a review of its wind turbine unit revealed a billion euro problem. Shares were up 5% on Reuters’ report today.
Meanwhile, a financial crisis continues to accelerate across the wind industry, with the world’s largest offshore wind farm developer, Ørsted, pulling out of major US projects due to soaring inflation costs and a high-rate environment. And the renewable energy meltdown in wind has spread to solar as several solar power company stocks crashed on sliding demand.
And so, hot on the heels of Germany’s bailout of Siemens, Bloomberg reports that the UK government is preparing to offer significantly higher subsidies for new offshore wind farms to get the country’s clean-power strategy back on track after developers shunned a previous auction, because the price was too low for offshore wind to be viable.
Denmark’s Orsted A/S, the world’s largest offshore wind builder, will decide by December whether to proceed with a UK development, while Sweden’s Vattenfall AB shelved a giant project off the English coast earlier this year in response to soaring costs.
While higher subsidies in the next auction round, known as AR6, may well reinvigorate offshore wind development, it will likely feed through to increased electricity costs for consumers still burdened with sky-high bills in the wake of last year’s energy crisis.
The energy transition to renewables across the Western world is cracking. Remember, the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act was all about ‘sustainable’ wind power… Time for another bailout?
Climate crisis? Or an incentive not to sign a naval resupply agreement with China?
Anthony Albanese offers Tuvalu residents the right to resettle in Australia, as climate change ‘threatens its existence’
By foreign affairs reporter Stephen Dziedzic in Rarotonga and the Pacific Local Journalism Network’s Nick Sas
Posted 19h ago19 hours ago, updated 16h ago
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a new pact with the low-lying island country of Tuvalu, allowing residents facing displacement from climate change the ability to resettle in Australia.
Key points:
The deal is the first time Australia has offered residence or citizenship rights due to the threat posed by climate change
The US and New Zealand have similar agreements with other Pacific countries
Mr Albanese described it as the most significant agreement between Australia and a Pacific island nation ever
In a move which could transform Australia’s relationships with other small Pacific nations and the region as a whole, Mr Albanese announced the agreement at the Pacific Islands Forum in Cook Islands, flanked by Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Kausea Natano.
The agreement will see 280 people per year given a “special mobility pathway” to “live, work and study” in Australia. Tuvalu has a permanent population of about 11,000 people.
In return, Australia will have effective veto power over Tuvalu’s security arrangements with any other country.
Most of the other islands in the area either have high quality concrete dock facilities, are in negotiations to build a high quality marina, and / or owe lots of money to China.
If I was less trusting I might be tempted to believe China is strenuously attempting to create a barricade of defensible, ready made deepwater harbour locations in a chain of Pacific islands forming a wide arc around Australia’s North East coast, which could be used to blockade US attempts to reach Australia via the Pacific Ocean, in the event of a major war or invasion. But obviously these are all projects for peace.
I doubt the “climate refugee” deal with Tuvalu will significantly improve Australia’s national security, if this is the goal. Pacific island politicians are experts at playing great powers off against each other, and extracting cash out of powerful neighbours which want to be their friends, they’ve had centuries of practice.
China and Australia have made their fair share of blunders in the region. Deep rooted expectations in both Chinese and Australian culture, about the paramount sanctity of signed agreements, has sometimes led to confusion and cultural misunderstandings when it encounters the more nuanced South Pacific way of doing business.
Scene from Breaking Bad TV show – Season 5 – ‘How Much is Enough?’ Morano: “We’ve reached peak insanity now in the United States with the climate agenda led by California. This federal climate cash is sitting in the state with nowhere to go, no one to spend it, and here’s the thing as weird as it is, this is a good thing, right? Because the last thing you want to do is spend the money because they’ve already said they’re going look for ways to reduce emissions to meet the governor’s ‘climate neutrality’ Net Zero rule. And if they do that, it’s going to make Californians even poorer and pay for more expensive energy. So this is a good development, you don’t want them to spend it. Let the money pile up just like in the TV show with nowhere to be spent because spending it impoverishes Californians.”
Morano: We’ve reached peak insanity now in the United States with the climate agenda led by California. This federal climate cash sitting in the state with nowhere to go, no one to spend it, and here’s the thing as weird as it is, this is a good thing, right? Because the last thing you want to do is spend the money because they’ve already said they’re going look for ways to reduce emissions to meet the governor’s ‘climate neutrality’ Net Zero rule. And if they do that, it’s going to make Californians’s even poorer and pay for more expensive energy. So this is a good development, you don’t want them to spend it. Let the money pile up just like in the TV show with nowhere to be spent because spending it impoverishes Californians.
Dagen: “I want my money back..”
Morano: California will find a way to spend it, spend it on reelection, buying votes. This is like something out of a university’s Soviet climate studies. They’re looking at all this money going into central planning, so decisions can be made by fewer and fewer people.
Morano on Google electric bus crash: “Its failure on a grand scale. Evs are already failing. EV mandates — all the CEOs of automakers don’t want them. But Google decided to double down on this giant EV bus and somehow nine vehicles were involved, smashed up because of this.
According to their website, there are six hydraulic disc brakes. Here’s the question. If the battery fails, do the brakes fail? There’s going to have to be an investigation here. But what a disaster! There have been protests against these buses going back a decade. A lot of the local residents in San Francisco don’t like the gentrification. They don’t like all the money being spent on these buses and not on all the other community needs that they need for affordable housing and other things. So the buses aren’t very popular on the street level. And this isn’t going to help when they’re smashing up nine cars and endangering human life.
Host: I bet you it was made in China.
Morano: All the materials certainly.
Host: Marc Morano. thank you so much. Great to see you.
Morano: “We’ve reached peak insanity now in the United States with the climate agenda led by California. This federal climate cash is sitting in the state with nowhere to go, no one to spend it, and here’s the thing as weird as it is, this is a good thing, right? Because the last thing you want to do is spend the money because they’ve already said they’re going look for ways to reduce emissions to meet the governor’s ‘climate neutrality’ Net Zero rule. And if they do that, it’s going to make Californians even poorer and pay for more expensive energy. So this is a good development, you don’t want them to spend it. Let the money pile up just like in the TV show with nowhere to be spent because spending it impoverishes Californians.”
Upon hearing about the federal government’s decision to roll back the carbon tax on heating oil, I rolled up my sleeves. The point of writing about energy at all is to try to illuminate some aspect of an energy topic from a viewpoint inside the energy sector; to explain some energy nuance that the general population, which cares little for the nuances of energy, may find valuable. Energy is not simple, and there are a lot of loud storytellers out there, selling magical beans and wishful thinking.
To me, the carbon tax rollback was an annoyingly flagrant bit of vote-buying, yet another irritant from the federal government but one that, on centre-stage, seemed to have far less potential for cross-country histrionics than, for example, the time the prime minister threw his talented and principled First Nations minister under the bus. Now that was a shockwave.
This carbon tax vote grab? Ha. SNC Lavalin, Jody Wilson-Raybould, the WE Charity scandal, foreign interference… a heating oil subsidy doesn’t even crack an annual top-ten list of federal governance dirty diapers.
Or so I thought. Hoo boy. The Hail Mary scheme has blown up, blown up real good. Critics are everywhere, from across the political and environmental spectrum. Liberal heavyweights are attacking Trudeau; economists that love the carbon tax for its ‘efficiency’ are declaring the carbon tax dead. Incredulously, premiers have voiced a unanimous opinion that the entire country needs to be treated consistently.
Upon further thought, it shouldn’t be a big surprise that even the hard core climate crowd is displeased. The federal government has been lavish with announcements and proclamations about eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, that they would do so faster than imaginable, that, well, read their words for yourself: “Canada is the only G20 country to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies ahead of the 2025 deadline. We are the first country to release a rigorous analytical guide that both fulfills our commitment and transparently supports action.”
“What the hell is this?” appears to be the consensus among a disparate group of voices that reaches consensus on nothing.
Be very clear why there is outrage: this is a shallow, obvious vote grab that crumbles the pillars of this government, and it most definitely is a creation of a brand new fossil fuel subsidy – so much for international credibility after all the hectoring this government has done globally. (If you have any doubts that this is anything but a political maneuver, consider that almost exactly a year before, in October 2022, the Conservatives tried to pass a motion to exempt home heating oil from the carbon tax, and all Liberal MPs save one brave Newfoundlander voted against it.)
Since the whole topic of the carbon tax has now come up though, here is a critical point that warrants some thought.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
Canada and the US have chosen two different strategies to reduce emissions. Canada has, of course, the carbon tax – if you use or burn hydrocarbons, you’re going to pay (certain rural maritimers temporarily notwithstanding). Governmental, and government friendly, economists contort themselves into pretzels to demonstrate that the rebates handed back by the federal government “more than compensate” for the carbon tax, but every citizen that goes to a grocery store and realizes that every item in the industrial chain that handled any of those products in this country paid their own carbon tax, and that all that is rolled into the end product, has a very strong real-world suspicion that the government’s equation is laughable.
Beyond that, there is a big problem with Canada’s ‘stick’ approach to carbon reduction. Canadians can choose to limit the impact of the carbon tax by switching to something less carbon intensive, or spending to otherwise limit emissions. You don’t want to pay the carbon tax, you or your business? “No problem!” Says the federal government; just spend some exorbitant amount of capital, based on frameworks and guidelines that are not yet even ready.
In the US, the government long ago (2008) introduced something called 45Q, a carbon credit which was recently beefed up significantly under the Biden Inflation Reduction Act energy policy. 45Q is a carrot. If you are a carbon emitter, well, no one likes the emissions, but go ahead and carry on with your business.
If you choose to reduce your carbon emissions however, the government will hand you a cheque (sorry, check) for doing so – $85 per tonne CO2e, to be precise. You can start a new business that generates emissions credits, and if you can do it for less than $85/tonne, you have a new profit centre. There is a companion credit called 45X; credit revenue can be generated from it by manufacturing components that go into various energy technologies including structural fasteners, steel tubing, critical minerals, pretty much any battery component, etc.
In short, an existing business can carry on as before, or embark on a new venture with a guaranteed revenue stream from carbon credits generated.
In Canada, the stick is, like, really big, and for real. If you exist and consume conventional energy, you will pay, and pay dearly, and the amount will go up every year until either 2030 or until you cry uncle, whichever comes first.
Want to avoid paying the tax? Again, you will pay dearly, but differently; you will pay for capital expenditures on whatever means are available to you, using whatever policies are worked out by governments at all levels (Not a secret: a great many of the regulatory bugs are not yet worked as to potential solutions to limit emissions, capture/store carbon, etc.).
In Canada, either way, you pay through the nose. In the US, you have options to go into another line of business, or to find potentially unrelated ways to reduce emissions, with a ‘guaranteed revenue stream’ in the form of credits.
Guess in which direction businesses will thunder?
Economists love Canada’s carbon tax because it is ‘efficient’. Well, yes, that is true in an oddball sort of way, just as I can guarantee you that I can ‘efficiently’ reduce local vehicular traffic by blowing up every bridge and overpass. How’s that for efficient? I could cut traffic levels by greater than 50 percent within hours of delivery of the ACME Dynamite.
At the end of the day, the federal government’s backpedaling on the carbon tax is symptomatic of a cornerstone of the entire movement failing, because it was made of styrofoam and the building upon which it was constructed will only work with carefully engineered cement.
Europe is no different, celebrating emissions reduction successes while not wanting to talk much about how the industrial sector has been hollowed out. “Stick” taxes force companies to shut down and/or leave, and just plain punish citizens for things like heating their homes.
The carbon tax is a solution to the extent that there is readily-trimmable fat in the system. But it has to be designed to go after that fat, not after everything that moves. Autos are a perfect example. The federal government could have mandated a switch to hybrids, and banned sales of 500-hp SUVs and whatever (don’t yell at me free marketers; I’m pointing out real-world pathways that are possible). They could have mandated a rise in corporate average fuel economy in one way or another.
That is trimmable fat. Attacking home heating fuels is not.
This isn’t to say the US’ program is sheer genius. However, it is worth noting that 45Q has been around for fifteen years; what has happened recently is that it has been beefed up in a way that makes sense. (The US is also doing nonsensical things like forcing companies into carbon capture and sequestration, at the same time that, as US Senator Joe Manchin points out, “CCUS and DAC developers have submitted more than 120 applications to EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] for Class VI well permits to sequester carbon since the IRA passed, and there are 169 total pending applications, and not one approval has been made by the Biden Administration.”)
The energy transition as envisioned by the ‘climate emergency’ crowd was doomed to fail because it was based on a ‘too fast, too soon’ transition game plan – which was actually not a plan at all, more of a command – and, equally as relevant, was based on the tenuous fear instilled in citizens by bad weather (an entire generation is now being raised to 1) be terrified of the weather, and 2) be convinced that their actions can influence it. Stop it.).
Our entire world is built on oil, natural gas, coal (in some parts of the world) and hydrocarbon energy systems in general. Sue ‘Big Oil’ all you want; that won’t change anytime soon.
Energy illiteracy is the slow-moving black plague of our time.
Canada’s efficient carbon tax pits citizens against their heating needs, against their business interests, and against inescapable realities.
Here’s the sad part: All the federal government is doing here is facing reality, or starting to. Europe did the same last year, spending hundreds of billions in brand new fossil fuel subsidies to shield consumers from rocketing energy prices. When push comes to shove, governments will wilt under pressured voter pocketbooks.
Boneheads will at this point insert the oft-heard refrain “So you’re saying we should just do nothing.” I’ve heard that so often it sounds like mosquitoes in summer. It’s the only attack some people have.
It is actually an amazing time to see new energy technologies take shape, with the best minds in the entire energy industry pushing in that way. We are seeing the creation of hydrogen hubs, development of new technology like fuel cells, greater use of methane capture from landfills, etc. A great many great minds are making significant progress.
But even those geniuses can’t change the laws of reality. Eight billion people are now alive at the same time due to a certain system, and it will take a very long time to change that system if all of those people stay alive and try to live like the west does.
Energy wise, we need better, much better. Canada’s government is paying the price for heedlessly listening to ideological cheerleaders. Just like Canada’s citizens have been.
Energy conversations should be positive and, most of all, grounded in reality. Life depends on it. Find out more in “The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity” at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com. Thanks!
Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.