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.
A climate alarmist letter initially with 800 (now 1,400) signatories from business and government, “celebrities,” faith leaders and others was just released with familiar cliches (“we are at a tipping point”). They call for an “orderly phase out of fossil fuels” and, by 2030, a tripling of renewable energy.
Week two of the UN climate summit in Dubai is here.
A climate alarmist letter initially with 800 (now 1,400) signatories from business and government, “celebrities,” faith leaders and others was just released with familiar cliches (“we are at a tipping point”). They call for an “orderly phase out of fossil fuels” and, by 2030, a tripling of renewable energy. How does all this occur? By the “implementation and ratcheting of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans well before COP30 in 2025.” In other words, the letter is another attempted money grab, particularly from the U.S., including under the guise of more NDCs stemming from the Paris Accord.
“Later is too late,” the letter concludes, which we’ve been reading for 30+ years.
Climate policies come down to coercion. They entail refusing to finance fossil fuel development in poor countries, mandating electric vehicles, blocking gas pipeline construction, and so much else. This invariably
raises the cost of fossil fuels to create a “market” for alternative energy. The word, “market” often used is deceitful and Orwellian since little or no market exists for so-called renewable energy, which necessitates mandates and taxpayer subsidies to force them on the public.
The UN does, however, attempt to find climate change solutions to usher in a “just transition” to renewable energy, a commonplace term heard all during COP28. To that end, the UN conducted an “Energy Transition Changemakers” competition among companies to develop carbon mitigation projects.
One of the award recipients was Fatima Al Suwaidi, a director at Masdar-Indonesia, a global renewable energy firm. She presented on the company’s floating solar plant in the Cirata Reservoir in the West Java province of Indonesia that produces 145 megawatts of power to serve 50,000 homes. The company plans to add to this capacity.
Are floating solar panels remotely scalable or practical? Being from New York State, home of the Catskill and Adirondack forest and mountains with scores of lakes and reservoirs, it is inconceivable to picture a bunch of floating solar panels taking over. Ms. Al Suwaidi told me afterwards that waterbodies do serve places like Indonesia, Japan and elsewhere since scare open and is taken up for agriculture or otherwise mountainous. Such projects are a reminder of the clear tension and conflict between the climate change policies and traditional environmentalism and nature preservation.
Fake windmills at COP 28
Other projects included facilities to replace gas-powered heat with electricity and replace coal with massive battery storage facilities. Unanswered was the extent of government-taxpayer subsidies, reliance on battery ingredients under the control of the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship, and other thorny issues.
The climate awards ceremony occurred at the “Impact” building, which is high-tech theater with seating capacity 126 that viewed a stage and massive flat-screen equivalent in size to a stadium monitor. In between the stage and seating is a large ceiling fountain that “rained” water down in circular fashion before the presentation.
The Expo City campus in Dubai that hosted COP28 is a multi-acre campus the size of a small municipality of numerous buildings, all with state-of-the-art technology. Rest assured, this high-tech capacity could only be powered by fossil fuels, notwithstanding the handful of fake, purple-colored wind turbines wheeled in as a Potemkin display of some faux commitment to wind power.
The whole set-up for COP28 far exceeded in scale the make-shift buildings for COP27 in Egypt last year, and the two convention centers used in Glasgow, Scotland for COP26 in 2021. It will be hard to equal the capacity of the oil-rich United Arab Emirates to host a convention of 80,000 to 100,000 attendees, but the unofficial word is that next year’s summit will be in Azerbaijan, a former Soviet Republic in southwestern Asia.
Another observation that will be continued to be monitored by CFACT: the increasing visibility of political agendas and causes that are glomming onto the climate issue, including banning meat, reigning in the clothing and fashion industries, opposing Israel and western military deterrence, demanding workers’ rights, feminism, transgender rights, and more.
Regardless of what side one comes down on these issues, the nexus to climate change is indirect or non-existent. For example, emissions from cow and fertilizer are a worthwhile an ancillary byproduct to feed the world’s population with meat products and protein to improve diets; thus, banning beef would be absurd and harmful to millions of people. On the flip side, slavery and child labor in China and the Congo to produce EV batteries, turbines and solar panels warrants a campaign for workers’ rights, though I noticed no panel discussion including these particulars.
It’s evident that with billions in public and private money flowing to the climate change industry, more political agendas and causes are grifting aboard since, the rationale goes, everything comes back to climate change. This will only lead to increasing and overweening government control of every aspect of individual life and society, including in ostensibly free, democratic nations.
In an opening address to the UN climate summit, King Charles expressed hope that COP28 would be another critical turning point towards “genuine transformational action”.
Sky News host Chris Kenny says King Charles needs a “stern talking to” over his climate change comments.
In an opening address to the UN climate summit, King Charles expressed hope that COP28 would be another critical turning point towards “genuine transformational action”.
“How dangerous are we actually prepared to make our world?” the King warned.
Mr Kenny criticised the King for trying to “lecture the world” and scare children with “catastrophism”.
“It is a new woke religion, it is not about science at all,” he said.
Rather like Brigadier Anquetil and the 44th Foot, Rishi Sunak took command of an army that was already defeated. For Anquetil the options were die now, or die later; famously only one of his group ever made it back to safety, if memory serves after surviving a sabre blow to the head because he had stuffed newspaper into his hat to keep warm.
Rather like Brigadier Anquetil and the 44th Foot, Rishi Sunak took command of an army that was already defeated. For Anquetil the options were die now, or die later; famously only one of his group ever made it back to safety, if memory serves after surviving a sabre blow to the head because he had stuffed newspaper into his hat to keep warm. For Rishi the options were rather better. For him there was still a chance to rally his forces and finally to outflank the enemy.
His chance to do so came when he blunk. He had the chance then to take a pragmatic approach to Net Zero, an approach that would put freedom and affordability, if not survivability, at its heart. He could have taken the state’s boot off the public’s face, and dared the opposition to promise to reinstate it as its prospectus for government. It is my belief that the subsequent debate would have given him his best shot of winning an election that is presently hurtling towards us. [Although the Rwanda debacle might have sunk his chances anyway.]
Here’s what he said back in September regarding the imposition of electric vehicles on an unwilling populace:
But we can do all this in a fairer, better way – and today I can set out the details of what our new approach will mean for people.
That starts with electric vehicles.
We’re working hard to make the UK a world-leader.
I’m proud that we’ve already attracted billions of new investments from companies like Tata’s Jaguar Land Rover gigafactory.
And I expect that by 2030, the vast majority of cars sold will be electric. Why?
Because the costs are reducing; the range is improving; the charging infrastructure is growing.
People are already choosing electric vehicles to such an extent that we’re registering a new one every 60 seconds.
But I also think that at least for now, it should be you the consumer that makes that choice, not government forcing you to do it.
Because the upfront cost is still high – especially for families struggling with the cost of living.
Small businesses are worried about the practicalities.
And we’ve got further to go to get that charging infrastructure truly nationwide.
And we need to strengthen our own auto industry, so we aren’t reliant on heavily subsidised, carbon intensive imports, from countries like China.
So, to give us more time to prepare, I’m announcing today that we’re going to ease the transition to electric vehicles.
You’ll still be able to buy petrol and diesel cars and vans until 2035.Even after that, you’ll still be able to buy and sell them second-hand.
Let me just repeat one bit:
And I expect that by 2030, the vast majority of cars sold will be electric. Why?
Er – wait, I know this one. Me me me me!
Yes, Jit?
Is it because he’s going to compel every car manufacturer to sell four EVs to every one ICE vehicle in 2030, or else pay a crippling fine on every ICE vehicle out of quota?
Wrong. The vast majority of new cars would be electric…
Because the costs are reducing; the range is improving; the charging infrastructure is growing.
Note the big fat “because” there. Of course, if Rishi believed that, he wouldn’t force the punters to buy EVs. But he did. It was a sort of “any colo[u]r you like so long as it’s black” offer.
We have cut emissions faster than any G7 country, pledged a decarbonised transport sector by 2050—the first major economy to do so—and today we have laid another world-leading piece of legislation: the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Manufacturers will now meet minimum targets of clean car production, starting with 22% next year and reaching 80% by 2030. It stands to be one of the largest carbon-saving policies across Government, and manufacturers are on board. They will deliver a mandate that they helped shape, a product of partnership between this Government and industry that has been not months but years in the making. These targets are now embedded in their forecasts, and that certainty has inspired investment, protected existing jobs and paved the way for new jobs, too. Look at the past few months: BMW, Stellantis and Tata are expanding their electric vehicle operations right across the UK, from Oxford to Merseyside.
Thereby exposing what Rishi had said as, er, empty rhetoric. The freedom of choice of his offer was an illusion, just like Henry Ford’s. And as for “the largest carbon-saving” policy? Balderdash. Tripe. We will be lucky if this measure saves the equivalent of a sack of coal.
At least the Opposition plunged in, announcing its intention to defend the average punter from this Galaxy-scale governmental overreach.
Ha! As if. They actually skipped that part of Harper’s statement altogether. It was neatly bundled up with the announcement that HS2 was going to be shortened (not, in this author’s prescription, eliminated totally), and that was what most of the debate centred on.
However, time moved on, and last week time moved on far enough that the vote on the relevant Order was due. Even knowing that it was due, I still missed it in Hansard. How so? It was filed in an obscure place, under Commons Chamber / Business Without Debate. Well, it happened on Tuesday. Without debate. You can find the record of who voted what in Hansard here.
The vote was carried 381 to 37, thus ensuring motorist misery until at least 2029, when [in my fever-dream] the Starmer government loses the election to a Conservative Party running on a populist manifesto. [Why is populism so unpopular? That’s something that has always confused me.]
In my kinder moments, I think of those 381 as well-meaning but dull, as daisy-chewing quadrupeds following one another down a curious single-file run that terminates in a building that sells hot sausages from a hatch on its opposite side. At other times, the things I think of them are not fit to print. But what of the Rebels, the few remaining members willing to stand up for their constituents against the green tyranny? I immortalise their names below, or at least, place them here for safe keeping for a while.
Afriyie, Adam Bradley, Ben Braverman, rh Suella Bridgen, Andrew Campbell, Mr Gregory Cash, Sir William Cates, Miriam Chope, Sir Christopher Davies, Philip Donaldson, rh Sir Jeffrey M. Drax, Richard Duncan Smith, rh Sir Iain Fysh, Mr Marcus Girvan, Paul Green, Chris Gullis, Jonathan Hayes, rh Sir John Holloway, Adam Jenkyns, Dame Andrea Jones, rh Mr David Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian Lockhart, Carla Mackinlay, Craig (Proxy vote cast by Mr Marcus Jones) Mills, Nigel Morris, Anne Marie Nici, Lia Paisley, Ian Patel, rh Priti Redwood, rh John Rees-Mogg, rh Sir Jacob Roberts, Mr Rob Robinson, Gavin Shannon, Jim Tomlinson, Justin Wiggin, Sir Bill Wilson, rh Sammy
I happened to notice that Cash, Sir William apparently walked through both lobbies. Does this voting irregularity invalidate the entire process? I really hope so. I’m saying he meant to vote “No.” Along with the loyal blue Yesses we had the likes of Corbyn, Jeremy and Lucas, Caroline. And yet nothing seemed to twig in the Conservatives’ minds. Bizarre.
History records that Brigadier Anquetil went down sword in hand. Sunak’s defeat will be rather more easy to bear. But when he is doing whatever he does once the removal van has taken his things from Downing Street, he might think back to his chance to steer the green avalanche away from the little people who are just trying to get on with their lives, and wonder what might have been.
The map above from IEA shows almost 2000 hydrogen fuel projects around the world, intending to replace hydrocarbon fuels to save the planet. They dream of being operational by 2030 claiming that real world obstacles will be overcome if enough taxpayer dollars are thrown at the problems.
The map above from IEA shows almost 2000 hydrogen fuel projects around the world, intending to replace hydrocarbon fuels to save the planet. They dream of being operational by 2030 claiming that real world obstacles will be overcome if enough taxpayer dollars are thrown at the problems. The whole notion is fantastic (in the literal sense) for reasons detailed in a previous post.
But realities be damned, there’s virtue to be displayed, money to be made and no accountability for failure, so the charade will go on. On the map are some bubbles off the coast of Canadian maritime provinces, so let’s take a peek into how these projects are conceived and realized. Rod Nickel reports at the Globe and Mail Canadian wind-hydrogen project delayed one year in race to first European exports. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.
Green Hydrogen Project in Atlantic Provinces Delayed
One of Canada’s first projects to produce emissions-free hydrogen with wind energy has delayed its start by one year because operator World Energy GH2’s European customers need more time to develop special infrastructure to handle the product, the company said.
The delays illustrate the difficulties companies face in introducing a nascent product to replace high-emitting forms of fuel for transport, industry and homes. [The background post above notes how hydrogen makes containers and conduits brittle, not to mention its explosive potential.]
Have we learned nothing from the Hindenburg Disaster?
Half a dozen companies are advancing projects in the gusty Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to harness winds to power production of Canada’s first exports of emissions-free hydrogen. Canada signed a non-binding agreement in 2022 to ship green hydrogen to Germany starting in 2025.
But World Energy GH2, an affiliate of Boston-based renewable fuels producer World Energy, won’t make that timeline, managing director Sean Leet told Reuters.
“The offtakers are not going to be ready to accept product within 2025, actually not until 2027,” Leet said, referring to buyers who would pre-purchase some of the project’s hydrogen.
The challenges for prospective buyers involve developing new technology to ship, further process and transport the hydrogen by pipeline at its last destination, Leet said.
World Energy GH2 now hopes to start production in late 2026, he said. It requires approval from Newfoundland’s environmental department and strong pre-purchase interest to attract financing before starting production.
Those buyer commitments hinge on the Canadian government finalizing details of a tax credit for up to 40% of the capital cost of building hydrogen plants, Leet said.
The company intends to build three onshore wind farms in Newfoundland to power production of 250,000 metric tons per year of hydrogen, at a total cost of $12 billion.
Advocacy group EnviroWatch NL, however, questions the efficiency of building wind turbines in Canada to produce hydrogen that will ultimately generate power for Europe thousands of kilometres away.
EverWind Fuels is on track to start production in Nova Scotia in 2025, said CEO Trent Vichie. Its plant, a converted fuel storage facility, would eventually produce 1 million metric tons annually of ammonia, a compound that is a practical form of transporting hydrogen.
EverWind, which declined to disclose the project’s capital budget, expects to strike firm buyer agreements in the first half of 2024, a spokesperson said, and has memorandums of understanding to sell hydrogen to German power companies Uniper and E.ON.
The Canadian government agreed in November to loan EverWind $125 million to build its project, which still requires provincial approval of its wind farms. EverWind’s hydrogen plant has already received environmental approval.
Germany-based ABO Wind is applying for permits and land for a Newfoundland onshore wind farm that will provide electricity to produce hydrogen for Braya Renewable Fuels’ refinery as early as 2027, Robin Reese, director of development for ABO Wind Canada said.
Newfoundland selected EverWind, World Energy GH2, ABO and Exploits Valley Renewable Energy Corp in August to proceed with their wind-hydrogen projects on government land.
U.S.-based Pattern Energy plans to secure European buying agreements in mid-2024 and start construction in 2025 for its wind-hydrogen project on private land in Newfoundland, Canada country head Frank Davis said.
Some Skeptical Comments on the article
EnviroWatch is asking the right question. Why use all this great wind energy to electrolyze water to make hydrogen to convert it (presumably) to ammonia for shipping to Europe to produce energy. It makes absolutely no thermodynamic sense whatsoever. I highly doubt ANY of these projects get built. To quote Susan Powter from the 90s, “Stop the insanity!”.
It makes no economic, thermodynamic or business sense. But it’s great politics.
I’m not thinking Billions but rather Trillions to be wasted on wind power before the world comes to its senses!Twenty- thirty years of spending. Reminds me of the treasure supposedly buried at Oak Island!
Problem is, the alternatives are all expensive mega-projects.Darlington was 5 years late and $10 billion over budget, and we haven’t built a new nuclear plant since then (30 years ago). New hydro dams have similar problems. Wind is small and cheap enough to actually get built in large numbers. Have to expand the energy supply somehow.
The actual Darlington nuke plants were 20% over budget not bad for a first of a kind. The rest was caused by government foolish delays in a high interest rate environment. The next 8 Candu’s were built on time in under 4 years and on budget at under $2/watt average the latest just completed in India.
The $25B refurb project is also on time and under budget.
Actually wind is of little use in Canada as it disappears in summer doldrums and winter cold snaps but maximizes during springtime when hydro flows max out. Its intermittancy makes it 10 times the cost of Candu.
Al Jaber is the perfect fall guy for the coming blame storm – he’s a big oil executive, and he was in charge of COP28.
United Arab Emirates Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology and COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber speaks during a press conference at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, December 4, 2023. REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani
“We are making progress” – but it sure doesn’t smell like progress.
From The Guardian;
Cop28: ‘failure is not an option,’ says summit president – as it happened
Sultan Al Jaber calls for countries to come together amid disagreements over the future of climate action
‘Failure is not an option’ – Al Jaber
Fiona Harvey
Sultan Al Jaber, president of Cop28, made a last-ditch call for all countries to come together this afternoon in Dubai, to find common ground amid deep disagreements over the future of climate action.
Everyone would be listened to, he said, emphasising as he has done from the start that this must be an inclusive process. “Everyone’s experience and national circumstances have merit and will be taken in consideration. We will not ignore anyone. As I’ve said many times, we will not neglect any issue, we will not neglect or undermine or underestimate any of the views or the national circumstances of any region or any country. And I promise that they will all be heard,” he said.
I actually feel a little sorry for Sultan Al Jaber. Despite being a big oil boss, I think he genuinely expected parties to behave rationally, that participants would be persuaded to buy his gas to help ween their economies off coal and oil, and everyone could go home and report real progress towards reducing global CO2 emissions.
What Al Jaber didn’t reckon on is the sheer irrationality of the climate movement. No agreement which includes a future role for fossil fuel is politically acceptable to Western climate extremists, no matter how much it reduces CO2 emissions. To the green extremists driving this entire process, Al Jaber has committed blasphemy by suggesting fossil fuel has a future. There is also a real possibility many participants at the COP conferences don’t actually want genuine progress, they just want someone to blame for the lack of progress.
Al Jaber is the perfect fall guy for the coming blame storm – he’s a big oil executive, and he was in charge of COP28.
Pinning the blame for failure on Al Jaber could have commercial consequences for the UAE economy, if greens in Europe and elsewhere demand the scapegoat be punished.
“Every night on the TV news is like taking a nature hike through the Book of Revelation,” Al Gore told the New York Times last year. The Times reporter noted: “The past few weeks have him even more worried than usual.” Really?
By Robert Bradley Jr. — December 11, 2023
“Today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin. We are still reluctant to believe that our worst nightmares of a global ecological collapse could come true; much depends on how quickly we can recognize the danger. [- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (1992)]
“Every night on the TV news is like taking a nature hike through the Book of Revelation,” Al Gore told the New York Times last year. The Times reporter noted: “The past few weeks have him even more worried than usual.” Really?
Gore’s rhetoric today is toned toward hope that new technology will save the day. “We know how to fix this,” Gore told the Times:
We can stop the temperatures going up worldwide with as little as a three-year time lag by reaching net zero. And if we stay at true net zero, we’ll see half of the human-caused CO2 coming out of the atmosphere in as little as 30 years.
Net zero fantasies aside, Gore pulls out his old trump card of “the survival of the human civilization,” such as his recent comment on ExxonMobil’s CEO participating at COP28.
——————————
From the late 1980s until today, Al Gore is singing the same tune. Here is a sampling of his otherworldly statements.
Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand-new relationship with the planet Earth. The world’s forests are being destroyed; an enormous hole is opening in the ozone layer. Living species are dying at an unprecedented rate.
To date, the national-security agenda has been dominated by issues of military security…. Many of us hope that the global environment will be the new dominant concern.
Similarly, the effort to solve the global environmental crisis will be complicated not only by blind assertions that more environmental manipulation and more resource extraction are essential for economic growth…. It will call for … a Strategic Environment Initiative.
Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992)
“[The] global environmental crisis is rooted in the dysfunctional pattern of our civilization’s relationship to the natural world.” (p. 237)
“It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five-year-period.” (pp. 325–26)
“We now know that [the automobile’s] cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.” (p. 325)
“Adopting a central organizing principle—one agreed to voluntarily—means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action—to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system.” (p. 274)
“Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change—these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.” (p. 274)
“I hope and trust we will all find a way to resist the accumulated momentum of all the habits, patterns, and distractions that divert us from what is true and honest, spinning us first this way, then that, whirling us like a carnival ride until our very souls are dizzy and confused.” (p. 367)
“Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet’s ecological system. The ferocity of its assault on the earth is breathtaking, and the horrific consequences are occurring so quickly as to defy our capacity to recognize them, comprehend their global implications, and organize an appropriate and timely response.” (p. 269)
“We are now, in effect, corruptly imposing our own dysfunctional design and discordant rhythms on future generations, and these persistent burdens will be terribly difficult to carry.” (p. 236)
“The global environmental crisis is rooted in the dysfunctional pattern of our civilization’s relationship to the natural world.” (p. 237)
“Our civilization is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself. This addictive relationship distracts us from the pain of what we have lost: a direct experience of our connection to the vividness, vibrancy, and aliveness of the rest of the natural world. The froth and frenzy of industrial civilization mask our deep loneliness for that communion with the world that can lift our spirits and fill our senses with the richness and immediacy of life itself.” (pp. 220–21)
“We have become so successful at controlling nature that we have lost our connection to it.” (p. 225)
“The world’s ecological balance depends on more than just our ability to restore a balance between civilization’s ravenous appetite for resources and the fragile equilibrium of the earth’s environment. . . . We must restore a balance within ourselves between who we are and what we are doing.” (p. 12)
“Our ecological system is crumpling as it suffers a powerful collision with the hard surfaces of a civilization speeding toward it out of control.” (p. 42)
“The potential for true catastrophe lies in the future, but the downslope that pulls us toward it is becoming recognizably steeper with each passing year. . . . Sooner or later the steepness of the slope and our momentum down its curve will take us beyond a point of no return.” (p. 49)
“Now warnings of a different sort signal an environmental holocaust without precedent. . . . Today the evidence of an ecological Kristallnacht is as clear as the sound of glass shattering in Berlin. We are still reluctant to believe that our worst nightmares of a global ecological collapse could come true; much depends on how quickly we can recognize the danger. (pp. 177–78)
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It (Emmaus, PA: Rodale, 2006)
“The underlying reality is that we are colliding with the planet’s ecological system, and its most vulnerable components are crumbling as a result.” (p. 8)
“In every corner of the globe … the world is witnessing mounting and undeniable evidence that nature’s cycles are profoundly changing.” (p. 8)
“Not only does human-caused global warming exist, but it is also growing more and more dangerous and at a pace that has now made it a planetary emergency.” (p. 8)
“The climate crisis is, indeed, extremely dangerous. In fact, it is a true planetary emergency.” (p. 10)
“Global warming, along with the cutting and burning of forests and other critical habitats, is causing the loss of living species at a level comparable to the extinction even that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.” (p. 10)
“This time it is not an asteroid [like 65 million years ago] colliding with the Earth and wreaking havoc; it is us.” (p. 10)
“Today, we are hearing and seeing dire warnings of the worst potential catastrophic in the history of human civilization: a global climate crisis that is deepening and rapidly becoming more dangerous than anything we have ever faced.” (p. 10)
“At stake is the survival of our civilization and the habitability of the Earth.” (p. 11)
“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…. To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world’s scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don’t act in 10 years.”
“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.”
“When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they’re going to bring gasoline prices down.”
“If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.”
Quotations About Al Gore
Gore calls our consumption habits an “addiction.” Civilization is termed clinically “dysfunctional.” His opponents are in psychological “denial.” The politically ambivalent electorate has grown psychologically numb in order to “anesthetize their conscience.” Businessmen and politicians are called “enablers.” In sum, society is sick, and only a therapist-in-chief can cure it. Stuart Smalley, meet the Unabomber. (Jerry Taylor, 2000)
Al Gore was right about one thing in his rant at the World Economic Forum in Davos: CO2 emissions have continued to climb and show no sign of being affected by “climate policy”. (Holman Jenkins, 2023)
Mr. Gore will continue his angry prophet act. Politics will continue to fuel a sacred pork scramble. The climate press will balance on its noses whatever memes are tossed its way. And humanity will adapt to the climate it gets, which the best current guess says will probably be another 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer over the next century. (Holman Jenkins, 2023)
In 2022, Micron announced its plans to build the largest semiconductor fabrication facility in the history of the United States. Micron intends to invest up to $100 billion over the next 20-plus years to construct a new chip fab plant in Clay, New York. A recent letter to the Editor of the Syracuse Post-Standard posed the questions: I wonder why the citizens of our state must be the sole providers of electricity to Micron? Shouldn’t Micron at least share in producing electrical power? The author went on to make recommendations that are inconsistent with the energy density of wind and solar that relate to the viability of the venture. This post documents the response I submitted to that letter.
I am following developments at Micron because the facility is going to be built within five miles of my home. I also follow the Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (Climate Act) because of its impacts on New York. The letter relates to both interests. The opinions expressed in this post do not reflect the position of any of my previous employers or any other organization I have been associated with, these comments are mine alone.
Overview
The Climate Act established a New York “Net Zero” target (85% reduction and 15% offset of emissions) by 2050. It includes an interim 2030 reduction target of a 40% reduction by 2030 and a requirement that all electricity generated be “zero-emissions” by 2040. The Climate Action Council (CAC) is responsible for preparing the Scoping Plan that outlines how to “achieve the State’s bold clean energy and climate agenda.” In brief, that plan is to electrify everything possible using zero-emissions electricity. The Integration Analysis prepared by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) and its consultants quantifies the impact of the electrification strategies. That material was used to develop the Draft Scoping Plan. After a year-long review, the Scoping Plan recommendations were finalized at the end of 2022. In 2023 the Scoping Plan recommendations are supposed to be implemented through regulation, PSC orders, and legislation. Environmental permitting is part of these implementation concerns.
Micron Chip Fab Faciliity
The description in the Environmental Assessment Form states:
Micron intends to invest approximately $100 billion over the next 20 years to build a leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing campus in the Town of Clay on the approximately 1,400-acre White Pine Commerce Park. Micron intends to acquire the White Pine Commerce Park from the Onondaga County Industrial Development Agency (OCIDA) and construct a campus for four (4) memory fabrication plants (also known as Fabs) on the site. Each Fab, and their related facilities, would take approximately three to five years to construct. Interior fit-out of each Fab would continue after the building is complete, resulting in continuous site activity over approximately 20 years. It is anticipated that the first two (2) Fabs would be complete within approximately 10 years, and the second two (2) Fabs would be complete approximately 10 years thereafter. Skilled trade labor will be employed throughout the 20-year period. Each Fab would occupy approximately 1.2 million square feet (sf) of land and contain approx. 600,000 sf of cleanroom space, 290,000 sf of clean room support space, and 250,000 sf of administrative space. Each set of two fabs would be supported by approx. 360,000 sf of central utility buildings, 200,000 sf of warehouse space, and 200,000 sf of product testing space housed in separate buildings.
Micron should share in producing power for its chip fab letter
Scott Love from Jamesville, NY sent a letter to the editor proposing several actions for the power needs of the facility.
After reading the article “Leaders: Grid must grow for Micron, others” in the Dec. 3, 2023, Business section of The Post-Standard, I wonder why the citizens of our state must be the sole providers of electricity to Micron? Shouldn’t Micron at least share in producing electrical power? The acreage covered by the Micron facility roofs should be used for producing solar power. In addition, hydro generators should be considered for the almost 40 miles of pipeline to and from Lake Ontario. On-site wind power should also be considered.
If Micron is to be considered a leader to the future of our community, then it is time for them to be forward-thinking in their planning.
There are several points raised that are ripe for comment in this letter. I submitted the following in response:
Scott Love recently suggested that Micron should share the responsibility to provide the electricity necessary for the facility. I agree with the idea but not his suggested approach.
He suggested that the facility use rooftop solar, think about on-site wind power, and consider hydro in the pipeline from Lake Ontario. That won’t work. The energy density of solar and wind is low. Even if the entire Micron footprint of 1,400 acres was covered with solar panels, panels would provide less than 1% of the power needs. Wind requires even more space so would provide less of the energy needed. Lake Ontario is lower than the Micron site so the water must be pumped up to the facility.
I believe a co-generation facility using natural gas or nuclear power is appropriate. For starters, it would eliminate the need for energy storage when the wind is not blowing or sun not shining. On-site generation makes sense because it reduces line loss and waste heat produced can be used for heating and manufacturing processes. Small modular nuclear reactors are not yet commercially available, but the facility could be designed to use that technology in the future. In the meantime, a combined-cycle gas turbine facility could be built. Carbon dioxide could be minimized by using it in on-site greenhouses that convert it to food.
If Micron is going to be a part of our community, it is time for everyone to be forward thinking and pragmatic about how best to make them competitive.
The remainder of this article summarizes the overall issue of Micron energy requirements and specific concerns with the letter.
Micron Energy Use
In August I prepared an article that described the reaction of Richard Ellenbogen to the massive amount of energy needed by the facility. I correspond with him regularly because he has spent a lot of time evaluating the Climate Act net-zero transition. I recently described his comprehensive presentation on the transition. When I let him know that the original projection for energy use that would be the same as the state of Vermont has been expanded to be the same as Vermont and New Hampshire he responded with the following:
I have been using the Micron facility as an example of how the Climate Act is actually going to increase NY State’s carbon footprint because transmitting all of that energy to the Micron site, as much as is used by the state of Vermont, over long distances was going to result in an amount of lost energy on the wires that could operate 1-3/4 Cornell Universities. One of my readers sent me an update of energy use because now it is projected that the Clay complex will consume 16 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, as much as Vermont and New Hampshire combined, or 16,000 Gigawatt Hours annually (16 Tera-watt hours). That is double the original projections and the idea that this could be supported with renewable generation is laughable. 16,000 GWh is an 11% increase in NY State electric usage just related to the one facility. The line loss will also double to consume the output of about a 100 megawatt fossil fuel plant under continuous operation.
To put the Micron facility’s usage into perspective, in its last full year of operation the 2 Gigawatt Indian Point nuclear plant generated 16.3 Tera-watt hours so the Micron facility will need to be supported by a 2 Gigawatt fossil fuel or nuclear plant on site or 2.1 Gigawatts of generation off site, 5% more. NY State’s policy makes absolutely no sense. To run the Micron facility would require using about 4 GW of the projected 9 GW of offshore wind to support the plant or 16 GW of solar arrays covering 128,000 acres (80 acres per 10 MW) or 200 Square miles. NY State has 7 million acres of farmland so solar arrays to support the Micron facility would use almost 2% of the farmland in the state and would also require an enormous amount of battery storage, the cost of which would greatly exceed the cost of a nuclear plant on site. A combined cycle generating plant on site would be about 75% less than the cost of the nuclear plant. Both the combined cycle gas plant and the nuclear plant on-site offer the option of recovering the waste heat and using it in the plant to make Micron even more energy efficient. With regard to the solar and wind, NY State is having major difficulties getting all of their renewable projects finished because of cost issues and interconnection issues, let alone adding this gigantic lead weight to the Camel’s back.
Micron Sustainability
The fact sheet for the proposed plan describes sustainability initiatives planned:
Achieve 100% water reuse, recycling and restoration.
Use 100% renewable electricity at the new facility.
Use green infrastructure and sustainable building attributes for the construction of the new fab to attain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold status.
Mitigate and control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for the new facility.
Incorporate energy efficiency measures.
Utilize green hydrogen – hydrogen formed through electrolysis powered by renewable electricity, without GHG emissions – to the extent feasible to displace/replace natural gas and gray hydrogen consumption.
Adopt measures to reduce and avoid waste generation and achieve zero hazardous waste to landfill.
I have been asked whether I think this facility will ever get built out as proposed. While I hope that it works out my skepticism increases in direct proportion to the number of commitments to politically correct narratives. This sustainability fact sheet is worrisome in that regard. The viability of this facility hinges on its ability to provide cost-competitive chips that require an energy intensive process. The Climate Act is going to raise energy prices and affect that metric. Consider those pledges relative to competitive viability.
This chip fab plant will use enormous amounts of water. Last summer it was disclosed that the environmental assessment expected that when the plant is fully fitted out that 40 million gallons of water per day would be needed. This would require a new 54” pipeline from Lake Ontario to the facility. It is not clear how that is consistent with the 100% water reuse, recycling, and restoration pledge unless the presumption that discharging to the Oneida River that ends up in Lake Ontario where it comes back to the plan is the 100% recycling mechanism. For my part I am fine with that.
The 100% renewable electricity pledge is a competitiveness problem, however. Ellenbogen’s response shown above addresses many of the issues. In his recent presentation he pointed out that as part of the commitment NYPA has committed to allocating 140 MW of hydro generation to Micron. The problem with that is that it does not represent new hydro. That is just re-labelling the “zero-emissions” attribute from somebody else to Micron for that power.
I have reservations about the remaining pledges. Ultimately, pledging to meet virtue signaling sustainability goals could increase energy costs which I worry could affect the viability of the facility. I have to believe that behind the scenes Micron and the State are going to have to address the tradeoffs of added costs for these pledges.
The pledge to use green hydrogen formed through electrolysis powered by renewable electricity, without GHG emissions caters directly to the Climate Action Council. This one could have major financial effects. Note that the caveat “to the extent feasible to displace/replace natural gas and gray hydrogen consumption”, is the only instance in their sustainability fact sheet where there is any hint that these aspirational goals may not be feasible.
The pledge to use green infrastructure and sustainable building attributes for the construction of the new fab to attain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold status is pandering s well. As long as these efforts reduce energy consumption this virtue signal will not impact the competitiveness of the facility.
Offering to mitigate and control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for the new facility is fine but there are regulations that are going to require than anyway.
Incorporating energy efficiency measures is another pledge. As long as these efforts reduce energy consumption that will reduce costs and is common sense approach to adding to viability.
The final pledge to “adopt measures to reduce and avoid waste generation and achieve zero hazardous waste to landfill” probably makes sense financially and adds viability value.
Documentation for my Letter
Love proposed that the facility use rooftop solar, think about on-site wind power, and consider hydro in the pipeline from Lake Ontario. He does not understand the scale of energy required or the concept of energy density. The energy density of solar and wind is low. Using the aforementioned analysis by Ellenbogen I calculated that even if the entire Micron footprint of 1,400 acres was covered with solar panels, they would provide less than 1% of the power needs because it takes a lot of space to gather energy from the sun. It might be counter intuitive but Ellenbogen and I both found references from federal agencies that said wind facilities require even more space to generate the same amount of energy. Due to space considerations, I could not point out that solar and wind resources at the facility site are unlikely to be particularly strong relative to other sites in New York because the site is in the lake-effect cloud belt and the area is flat. I expect that the facility footprint would likely produce even less of the energy needs than projected using state averages. Another point I could not make is that on-site production would need to provide energy storage to be useful.
The proposal to put hydro in the pipeline from Lake Ontario is laughable. Lake Ontario is lower than the Micron site so the water must be pumped up to the facility. That approach is an example of a perpetual motion machine. Ellenbogen also pointed out that even if it was downhill, do they really think that a 54″ diameter water pipe could put a dent in the energy needed? Micron’s 16.2 TWh will use the equivalent to 60% of all of the Hydro in the state or 26.8 TWh. Micron is supposed to use 10 million gallons per day after recycling with a 54″ pipe. That corresponds to 7000 gallons per minute. The Robert Moses / Lewiston Pumping Station uses 750,000 gallons per second or 45 million gallons per minute. That would be 6500 times as much.
Ellenbogen and I independently decided that co-generation would be the most appropriate on-site energy source. We believe a co-generation facility using natural gas or nuclear power is appropriate. The Ellenbogen presentation proposed allowing Micron Technologies to build a 2 GW combined cycle plant on their property. He points out that with generation on-site, the thermal energy could be used at the plant and the 500 GWh of annual line loss will be eliminated.
There are two choices for generation. Small modular nuclear reactors are not yet commercially available, but the facility could be designed to use that technology in the future. In the meantime, a combined-cycle gas turbine facility could be built. The downside of a natural gas co-generation plant is that it will emit CO2. One of the unresolved Climate Action Council questions is whether such a gas-fired turbine that includes carbon capture and sequestration would be allowed. According to the zealots, there still would be emissions and the law says zero emissions. Ellenbogen suggested using greenhouses to reduce CO2 emissions. Using the CO2 in them to enhance growth captures carbon in the plants and waste heat from turbines to warm them would tick off the locally sourced produce target and I am sure creative accounting comparing local produce to the produce shipped from overseas could claim GHG emission reductions. .
Conclusion
The development of Micron within the Climate Act framework will be a good test of pragmatic environmentalism. The tradeoff between Climate Act absolutism, i.e., demanding nothing less than zero, with the extra costs associated with that approach versus the need to keep the Micron facility in New York competitive with the global chip market is an important substantive issue. However, much of the Climate Act is style over substance. The press releases to date talk a stylish game about being green but the approach to making them look “green” is a simply shuffling attributes from existing sources. Ellenbogen and I believe that we should let them be green in reality with high efficiency generation that lowers energy costs to make them more competitive without faking it. For all the talk of jobs associated with the energy transition if the energy transition makes the Micron facility unable to compete on the world market then there will be an enormous hit on jobs.
Energy density is the reason that on-site wind and solar generation would only be virtue signaling. The area simply cannot generate enough electricity to be meaningful. I have no doubt that environmental activists will be upset that I recommend energy dense natural gas or nuclear cogeneration that could be installed on the footprint. However, if Micron is going to be a part of our community, it is time for everyone to be forward thinking and pragmatic about how best to make them competitive.
Achieving Net Zero means building 80 million kilometres of new and refurbished power lines within 17 years, equivalent to wrapping the Earth 2,000 times with new electricity grid capacity. All the high voltage lines built in the last century will need to be built again by 2040 to benefit from all the intermittent power produced by the vast number of wind turbines.
Achieving Net Zero means building 80 million kilometres of new and refurbished power lines within 17 years, equivalent to wrapping the Earth 2,000 times with new electricity grid capacity. All the high voltage lines built in the last century will need to be built again by 2040 to benefit from all the intermittent power produced by the vast number of wind turbines. The ecological costs of all this can only be guessed at. Electricity cables are made of aluminium and copper and strung on giant pylons made of steel and supported by large concrete bases. For their part, wind turbines are a menace to both avian and oceanic wildlife, consume vast quantities of raw materials, have a limited lifespan and are an increasing blight on both inland and offshore landscapes.
If the International Energy Agency (IEA) gets its way, you ain’t seen nothing yet. The roll-out of high voltage lines will be on an unprecedented scale. In a report on global electricity grids issued to coincide with COP28, the IEA states that “an unprecedented level of attention from policymakers and business leaders is needed to ensure grids support clean energy transitions and maintain electricity security”. Major changes in how grids operate and are regulated are said to be essential. Annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs to double to more than $600 billion a year by 2030.
The Australian science journalist Jo Nova is in no mood to be understanding: “Remember, it’s not their fault that renewables need far more land, more space, more backup and more infrastructure – it’s our fault we didn’t build a world ready for their holy energy.”
The IEA paints a world where electricity grids are becoming a “bottleneck” for transitions to Net Zero emissions. While investment in renewables has been increasing rapidly, global investment in grids “has barely changed”. In Europe, policymakers can speed up progress on grids by “enhancing planning, ensuring regulatory risk assessments allow for anticipatory investment, and streamlining administrative processes”. In plain English this means ripping up local planning laws in over-populated Britain and blanketing the country with millions of giant electricity pylons. These will be required to bring energy to urban areas from power intermittently generated far away in the North Sea and off the Scottish coast.
It is perhaps no coincidence that the British Government recently set out “major plans” to speed up connections and rapidly increase capacity on the electricity grid. The press release cunningly linked it with a £960 million government investment in “green industries”. The new package is “expected” to bring forward £90 billion of investment over the next 10 years. The Government promised that it will “reward” those living closest to new infrastructure with up to £1,000 a year off their electricity bills. In another part of the release, this is downgraded to communities “could” benefit, and the bung is limited to 10 years.
Whatever the money is spent on, it is likely to be chickenfeed compared with the growing £12 billion annual subsidy paid by electricity consumers to the producers of renewable energy. But the next British government will face an empty exchequer and soaring state debt. Lack of finance along with the end of low interest rates and free money printing is likely to kill many of the green fantasises currently being peddled by collectivist Net Zero fanatics. It is becoming clearer by the day, to an increasing number of people, that renewable energy is unreliable and uneconomic, and has an insatiable requirement for financial subsidy.
Emeritus Cambridge Professor Michael Kelly has long been a critic of the blind, un-costed rush to Net Zero. The U.K. electricity grid will require upgrading from top to bottom, he wrote in a recent GWPF essay. Leaving aside the massive roll out of long-distance transmission lines required, he noted the inadequacies of all the local cabling and sub-stations built before the need to charge electric cars and run heat pumps. “The whole distribution system will need to be upgraded… the work will be extraordinarily expensive, but without it there will either be regular brownouts, or drivers will be told where and when they can charge their batteries,” he explained.
Professor Kelly believes it is a failure of the British political machinery, notably the work of the unelected Climate Change Committee. “We have set out to decarbonise the economy without anyone having thought through all the engineering issues, let alone put a cost on the exercise,” he concluded.
But as Jo Nova observes, it is all our fault. “Apparently, we should have paid attention and built the right grid and now due to our laziness we will have to rush in another 80 million kilometres of interconnectors, just like that,” she writes Tell the children they’ve been lied to, she concludes. “The Green future is an industrial wasteland of concrete and steel built to line the pockets of billionaires and bankers.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Back to the question of the rising number of Atlantic tropical storms, which we discussed last week.
To recap, this is what the BBC reported two years ago:
Over the past 10 to 15 years, though, named storms have formed prior to the official start about 50% of the time.
And the way they are defined and observed has changed significantly over time.
“Many of these storms are short-lived systems that are now being identified because of better monitoring and policy changes that now name sub-tropical storms,” Dennis Feltgen, meteorologist at the US National Hurricane Center (NHC) told BBC Weather.
The number of named storms has increased over the decades, but there is no real evidence this is the result of a warming world.
The overall increase from 1961 is also likely to be due to better technology, along with observations over the Atlantic Ocean.
Since satellites came along in the 1980s, we can spot and monitor the development of tropical cyclones and name them when they meet the threshold.
Dr Neil Frank, who was Director of the US National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987 goes further, maintaining that many of the storms now named would not have been in his day.
He made two particular complaints about current methods in 2021:
1) Many named storms are actually winter storms, not tropical storms. He states that the first six tropical storms in 2020 would not have been counted in his time.
2) Nowadays the NHC rushes to name a storm, simply based on wind speeds. His team would have waited until the central pressure dropped to confirm that it really was a tropical storm, and not just a thunderstorm. This often explains why named storms are often so short lasting now.
I can now confirm that there was indeed a policy change in 2002, and it concerned subtropical storms. The US National Weather Service explain:
The National Hurricane Center began naming subtropical storms in 2002. Between 1968 and 2001, subtropical storms were simply given numbers (“One”, “Two”, etc). Before 1968, subtropical storms were never classified as such, but were sometimes called “Unnamed storm”. A landmark study performed by Herbert and Poteat (1975) led to a substantial increase in the identification and naming of subtropical storms in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, when Bob Sheets became director of the National Hurricane Center between 1987 and 1995, he declared that subtropical storms should not be recognized, and very few subtropical storms were classified during this period. Prior to 1968, there are many systems that were subtropical in the Atlantic that should have been included in the official HURDAT database.
It is often difficult to tell from looking at forecast model data whether a low that is expected to develop near the U.S. coast will be tropical, subtropical, or extratropical. The difference is important, since tropical systems have the potential to quickly grow into hurricanes, while extratropical or subtropical storms do not. So, here’s a quick meteorology lesson on the normal progression one sees from extratropical cyclone, to subtropical cyclone, to tropical cyclone.
1) An extratropical cyclone forms. Extratropical cyclones have cold air at their core, and derive their energy from the release of potential energy when cold and warm air masses interact. These storms always have one or more fronts connected to them, and can occur over land or ocean. An extratropical cyclone can have winds as weak as a tropical depression, or as strong as a hurricane. Examples of extratropical cyclones include blizzards, Nor’easters, and the ordinary low pressure systems that give the continents at mid-latitudes much of their precipitation.
2) If the waters under the extratropical cyclone are at least 21C (70F), thunderstorm activity will gradually build inside the storm and moisten and warm the lower levels. Over time, the core of the storm may gradually go from cold to warm, and the storm will start getting some of its energy from “latent heat”, which is the energy released when water vapor that has evaporated from warm ocean waters condenses into liquid water. Latent heat is what powers tropical cyclones. At this point, the storm is called subtropical. If the winds are already more than 39 mph (as happened in the case 2007’s Subtropical Storm Andrea), it is called a subtropical storm. If the winds are less than 39 mph, then it is called a subtropical depression. So, you don’t need to start with a subtropical depression in order to get a subtropical storm.
A subtropical storm typically has a large, cloud free center of circulation, with very heavy thunderstorm activity in a band removed at least 100 miles from the center. The difference between a subtropical storm and a tropical storm is not that important as far as the winds they can generate, but tropical storms generate more rain. There is no such thing as a subtropical hurricane. If a subtropical storm intensifies enough to have hurricane force winds, than it must have become fully tropical. The definition of a subtropical storm, according to the National Hurricane Center: A non-frontal low pressure system that has characteristics of both tropical and extratropical cyclones.
This change of policy is more than just an academic debate about the naming of storms. It also affects the calculation of ACE, which is widely used as a metric of the energy released by tropical cyclones. NOAA, for instance, always include this chart in their annual Tropical Cyclone Report:
Last night on The Gunn Show, Michelle Stirling from Friends of Science joined Sheila Gunn Reid to discuss what unfolded in the United Arab Emirates during the annual climate summit.
Last night on The Gunn Show, Michelle Stirling from Friends of Science joined Sheila Gunn Reid to discuss what unfolded in the United Arab Emirates during the annual climate summit.
Stirling also talked about her recent battle for free speech and the academic exchange of ideas after two of her papers were censored.
0:00 Intro 3:00 Pre-recorded interview with Michelle Sterling 4:30 Thoughts on the COP28 conference 8:30 ‘Where do farmers fit in the mix’ ? 11:00 Alberta’s energy is much cleaner? 16:45 ‘Shock at COP28!’ 21:00 Mark Carney’s firm is underreporting carbon emission 29:30 Can people have a healthy debate? 30:00 Discussing a book on ‘Scientists don’t care about the truth’ 45:00 The Gunn Show letters 47:49 End
You must be logged in to post a comment.