Day: February 19, 2024

Wait for the Blackout

First, Robert Jenrick is hardly the first person to warn of blackouts. The boss of the National Grid warned in November 2022, that blackouts and power cuts could be imposed during a really cold winter. Last year the National Grid also warned that they “sometimes they need to reduce demand by planned outages to avoid major damage”.

From The Daily Sceptic

By DAVID TURVER

Last week, Jess Ralston, the Head of Energy at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), took to Twitter/X to criticise Robert Jenrick for suggesting that if Labour keep their promise to decarbonise the grid by 2030, then we will see power blackouts:

Figure 1

She suggested Jenrick’s fears were “scaremongering” and demanded some evidence. She’s right that assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, time to look at the evidence.

Warnings of Blackouts

First, Robert Jenrick is hardly the first person to warn of blackouts. The boss of the National Grid warned in November 2022, that blackouts and power cuts could be imposed during a really cold winter. Last year the National Grid also warned that they “sometimes they need to reduce demand by planned outages to avoid major damage”.

If even the National Grid is warning of outages, then Jenrick’s comments can hardly be described as scaremongering.

Peak Supply from Fossil Fuels and Nuclear

Remember that Labour have promised to decarbonise the grid by 2030, so I thought it would be helpful to see how much we rely upon reliable sources of power like fossil fuels and nuclear power now. I downloaded the supply and demand figures from Gridwatch for December 2023 and January 2024 to determine the peak supply from fossil fuel sources and from nuclear power during that period. There were eight occasions when supply from these sources exceeded 32GW. The peak supply from fossil fuels and nuclear came during the evening of December 1st, 2023, at 32.3GW. At that time, we were getting <1.5GW from wind, nothing from solar, 2.8GW from biomass, 0.8GW from hydro and a net 5.8GW from interconnectors.

Since then, due to a fault on one of the nuclear power stations supply from nuclear has dropped from 4.8GW to 3.8GW.

Changes to Generating Capacity

Over the next few years, the supply from fossil fuel and nuclear sources is going to change dramatically. First, the Government has announced that it plans to phase out our remaining coal power stations by October 2024. Moreover, the Hartlepool and Heysham One nuclear power plants are scheduled to shut down in 2026. In addition, the remaining two Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors at Heysham Two and Torness and due to shut down in 2028. This will leave us with just 1.2GW of nuclear capacity until Hinkley C eventually comes online, now expected in 2031.

DUKES Table 5.11 gives a list of all power stations in the U.K. by type, including the year of installation. Gas-fired power stations are supposed to have a life of 25-30 years (sometimes up to 40 years). Assuming an asset life of 30 years for gas-fired units and the announcements about coal generation and the nuclear power plants, Figure 2 shows what the profile of fossil fuel and nuclear power plant capacity looks like out to 2035 and compares that to the peak power produced by these types of unit in December 2023.

Figure 2

Here we can see we may run into trouble as soon as late this year if there are any unplanned outages or maintenance issues with the power plants. Capacity in 2025 just falls short of peak requirement, with 2026 showing a capacity gap of 3.9GW. The gap then grows to 15.9GW in 2030, closes a bit in 2031 as Hinkley C comes online before expanding to over 17GW by 2035. This does not consider that as the penetration of EVs and heat pumps increases, peak demand is likely to rise, further exacerbating the gap.

It might be possible to extend the life of these power plants out to 40 years. This begs the question about whether we should be basing our energy security on aging gas-fired power plants that are on their last legs? Ignoring that issue for the moment, extending the lives has the impact of keeping us just above water out to 2027, but there is a 1.4GW gap from 2028 as the remaining AGR nuclear plants close. If the grid is supposed to be decarbonised by 2030, there is then a gaping chasm of over 31GW at that point, as seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3

So, what might fill the gaps? Well, the most obvious thing to do would be to keep the coal-fired plants running and nurse the gas-fired plants into a longer life. To be safe, we should be investing in more new gas-fired plants, but we have not installed a new CCGT plant since 2016.

During those peak times described above, the interconnectors were effectively maxed out already, so there is no chance they can come to the rescue.

The Net Zero zealots have ruled out fossil fuels, so let us look at renewables. We have 1.5GW of natural flow hydroelectric capacity and aside from a few single-digit MW installations, we have not installed any significant new capacity since 2008. Hydro is not coming to the rescue. We also have pumped hydro, designed for fast response, but much of this was already being used at the times of peak demand, so that is not going to bridge the gap either.

We have 3.9GW of bioenergy, most of it being burning trees at Drax. There is no chance of expanding that to meet a 31GW supply gap by 2030, and anyway, where would all the wood-chips come from?

Of course, if we carpeted more farmland with solar panels, it would make no difference at all. This is because the peaks occur when it is dark, so there is no solar power anyway.

That leaves wind. At the times when fossil fuels and nuclear were providing over 32GW, wind was producing 1-1.5GW. It is unrealistic to expect that we can double wind capacity by 2030, but even if we could, we might expect at most an extra 1.5GW of generation on calm cold evenings, or less than 5% of the gap. So even doubling wind capacity is not going to help.

They could retrofit carbon capture and storage (CCS) on to the existing gas-fired plants, but there are several issues with this. First, we do not have a single plant working with this technology today, so the chances of installing this on all the aging gas-fired plants by 2030 are negligible. Second, CCS reduces the efficiency of power plants, so even if they did manage to install CCS, the output would be ~20% lower than it is today, meaning we would still have a significant generation gap.

Conclusions

Robert Jenrick was right. The evidence shows if Labour gets in and pursues decarbonising the grid by 2030, then we are in for blackouts. But before he takes a victory lap, he should consider that his party’s plans call for decarbonisation of the grid by 2035. Under his Government’s plans we will still face blackouts by 2028 at the latest.

I do hope this is sufficient evidence to convince Jess Ralston that our generation capacity is in a parlous state and there is a very real risk we will face blackouts in the not-so-distant future. And while we are on the subject of needing evidence to support assertions, what is the evidence that the “I” in ECIU can justifiably stand for Intelligence?

The inspiration for the title of this article came from the eponymous song by, appropriately enough, The Damned. When thinking about alleged policy gurus, recent, current and potential future energy secretaries, I am reminded of another track from the punk era: Pretty Vacant.

David Turver writes the Eigen Values Substack page, where this article first appeared.

Castrate squirrels and serve prisoners culled deer meat, says latest net zero plan

Squirrels will be chemically castrated and deer will be culled, cooked and served to prisoners under net zero plans to protect England’s trees.

Animals in the firing line as Defra draws up scheme to protect woodlands and limit nation’s carbon output.

Squirrels will be chemically castrated and deer will be culled, cooked and served to prisoners under net zero plans to protect England’s trees.

The Government is drawing up options to control the deer and squirrel population to protect woodlands in an effort to limit the nation’s carbon output and help native species. The Telegraph has the story.

The highest deer population for 1,000 years is devastating woodland, while grey squirrels are estimated to cost the economy £37 million per year in negative impacts to trees, whilst ravaging red squirrel populations.

The risks to woodlands also threaten to undermine efforts to increase the use of timber frame house building, under plans to reduce carbon output in the construction industry.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is due to publish both a deer and squirrel strategy to tackle the issue. 

Population control plans under consideration include: culling deer and using their meat to serve venison in prisons and hospitals; putting contraception in grey squirrel feed to effectively sterilise the population; and using gene editing technology that means grey squirrels only give birth to one sex, limiting further reproduction.

The strategies will aid long-held efforts to protect native red squirrels, while protecting government targets to have 16.5 per cent of England under tree cover by 2050 – a goal in the Environment Act which will increase tree cover to an area the size of Cheshire. 

Under previous plans, it was hoped boosting the pine marten population would also help limit grey squirrel numbers and protect the native red. Studies have shown exposure to pine martens has a strong negative effect on grey squirrel populations, but the opposite effect for red squirrels. 

Britain’s red squirrel population has fallen from around 3.5 million to just a few hundred thousand, compared to the estimated population of 2.7 million grey squirrels, following their introduction from North America in the 19th century.

Deer strategy delays

Defra’s deer strategy was due to be published last summer, but has been subjected to “frustrating” delays at ministerial level, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Lord Kinnoull, chairman of the UK Squirrel Accord, said while there were a number of non-lethal ways to control squirrels, this was not the case for deer.

He said: “The difficulty with deer is there isn’t a fertility control strategy and so control means a high calibre rifle. Such rifles are typically lethal at a two-mile range and thus experience and expertise is vital.

“When you shoot a deer in the highlands of Scotland there is an extremely efficient system of putting it into the market. The red deer that are shot in Scotland are scooped up and end up being eaten.

“In the home counties, the venison collection industry is not well developed.”

Read the full story here.

A climate of facts, not fear

The great Democratic Party President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

The great Democratic Party President Franklin Roosevelt famously said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

So why do the climate catastrophists – like the anti-nuclear energy crowd – use fear as their main tactic for browbeating an unwilling public into accepting their grotesque bans on natural gas, petroleum, and even nuclear energy (not to mention coal)?

The fear mongers used images to scare people into killing Eisenhower’s dream for the “peaceful uses of nuclear energy,” which died after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Fear was the message in the 1959 anti-nuke film On the Beach and the 1964 LBJ “daisy ad” that killed the Goldwater campaign.

While the official death toll from Chernobyl has been raised to 54, radical groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose website does not list a single affiliated scientist) raised money by claiming up to 27,000 would die of additional cancers. Not to be outdone, Greenpeace in 2006 claimed that over 200,000 had already died from Chernobyl-related cancer.

Fear pays. The UCS, also a leading advocate for “green energy,” has an annual budget of about $43 million, while Greenpeace’s may be 10 times that amount. Other fear-mongering groups rake in collective billions – dwarfing the revenues of nonprofits who advocate for a balanced, far less disruptive approach to future energy use.

But even fear as a weapon has its limits when people begin to see clearly through the fog. The emperor really was naked. Chicken Little was a bit over the top. The Founding Fathers overcame the fear of failure to win America’s freedom from an oppressive monarch.

Perhaps it was the COVID pandemic that awakened millions across the globe to the reality that there are far more pressing issues today than “climate change” (barring an asteroid or other extra-terrestrial catastrophe or an unprecedented series of volcanic eruptions, both far beyond human control).

Many people resisted taking the COVID vaccines even after illegal mandates were imposed on them that cost jobs and lifelong friendships (even within families).

Fear has led to the neglect and downplaying of important, even urgent, human concerns and allowed the elites to begin restructuring world society to accommodate their belief (or tool for control) that carbon dioxide is an evil that must be eradicated. The carbon conundrum has even confabulated the field of geopolitics and turned allies into enemies and vice versa.

The carbon crisis movement builds on the lie that carbon dioxide, absolutely necessary for human and plant life, is bad for the planet. But Earth has seen widespread fluctuations in carbon dioxide levels, and the science shows that increased atmospheric (or greenhouse) carbon dioxide levels increase plant yields and thus enable feeding a growing world population while keeping the planet “green.”

The media have kept from the masses the confessions of the globalists that they use climate fear to attack the capitalist system. Their goal is to install a single, all-powerful world government with the power to dictate what we eat, what we wear, where we may travel, what jobs we may pursue, and how long we may be allowed to consume oxygen.

Across Europe, farmers are revolting against Commissar-like diktats that they slaughter herds or stop farming altogether. The globalists want to force people to eat laboratory-created “food,” worms, crickets, and algae. Not so secretly, they mumble about drastic reductions in the world human population, which some now believe they seek to accomplish through deadly viruses they are creating in laboratories on multiple continents.

The much softer sell is typified by former White House chef Sam Kass. His clever way to scare people into “climate action” is to host dinners featuring dishes he insists may soon disappear because of the “climate crisis” (rather than poor resource management).

His “Last Supper” (hmm!) features salmon, oysters, chocolate, coffee, and wine – all of which, he claims, “could” disappear altogether because of climate change. According to Kass, a political advisor to former President Barack Obama, “The reality is this is starting to play out right now.”

Lest anyone forget, grapes used to make wine are grown on every continent (Antarctica excluded) in a wide variety of localized climates. Entrepreneurs have for millennia found ways to adapt to changing climates, urbanization, and other intrusions that may force them to relocate to continue turning a profit. But of course, the market is bad – central planning is the only way!

Europeans are now questioning UN, EU, and WEF mandates that would force them into buying expensive heat pumps, electric vehicles, and other inconveniences while adapting to routine blackouts and brownouts resulting from the shuttering of reliable sources of energy. They also see how their leaders’ policies are benefiting the Chinese, whose own cheaper electric vehicles (made with slave labor) are flooding markets.

The global resistance movement is growing, even in Australia, which went into a total panic with lockdowns and arrests during the COVID pandemic. Brave souls gathered on February 6 to greet the new Parliament with a National Rally Against Reckless Renewables.

Many diverse regional communities directly and adversely affected by Aussie government policies demanded the country reestablish an electricity network that is efficient, safe, reliable, secure, and affordable. These policies, they asserted, threaten productive agricultural land, fisheries, and native habitats – worse, the government is subsidizing “greenwashed multinationals”.

Organizers, led by the National Rational Energy Group, condemned the 1,000-plus new “renewable” projects in the government’s “Powering Our Nation” pipeline, almost all of which will negatively impact coastal, farming, or traditional communities with small populations. In many cases, the right of these citizens to judicial review or appeal is being denied.

And what are their demands? First, a Senate inquiry to scrutinize the technical veracity as well as the excessive economic, social, and environmental costs of these “renewable” projects and the escalating risks to the national interest and security. The coalition also demanded an immediate suspension of all “renewable energy” projects until the Senate inquiry has reported its findings.

Imagine such an inquiry regarding the risks to national security of allowing the Chinese to dominate the world automotive marketplace because of their near-total control of the lithium battery market.

Imagine an inquiry as well into the real-world effects of the globalist demands for destroying herds, erasing farmland, and forcing people to purchase heat pumps.

Imagine an inquiry into the likely cost of electricity resulting from electric vehicle mandates and bans on natural gas, coal, and nuclear.

Speaking of nuclear, the coalition also demanded that Australia lift its 25-year-old ban on nuclear energy imposed in 1999 as part of a deal that led to the nation’s renewables-subsidizing Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Nuclear has been revived as a favored option in part because of the $13 billion needed to build 10,000 kilometers of power lines to link up the plethora of renewable energy projects – which will cause havoc in rural Australia. Building modern-day nuclear plants on the sites of existing coal plants would require no new transmission lines at all.

Could the worldwide revolt against the smug globalists who have relied on fear to browbeat nations into adopting the absurd “climate catastrophe” agenda come from the stalwart Australians?

Isn’t it time for people everywhere to demand answers to the serious questions about the real-world costs of imposing the “renewables” agenda be laid out in full?

How to Convince those Dumb Deniers Part Eleventy Fifty-Seven

Much of what passes for Science® these days is the construction of some focus groups given various subjective A/B tests, then followed up by detailed statistical analysis of subjective surveys of the participants. Not just “Climate Communications”. I’ve seen the same thing in other soft subjects, such as “Design Science” for years. The following is a classic of the genre.

From Watts Up With That?

Much of what passes for Science® these days is the construction of some focus groups given various subjective A/B tests, then followed up by detailed statistical analysis of subjective surveys of the participants. Not just “Climate Communications”. I’ve seen the same thing in other soft subjects, such as “Design Science” for years. The following is a classic of the genre.

Their conclusion seems to be that if you ask people to make sacrifices, they resist more conspicuously than if you tell people in passive voice that things must be done, especially by others.

Lots of math was involved in order to reach this spectacular and profound conclusion.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2023.2296844?src=

This study posits the hypothesis that the lack of an individual’s engagement in mitigating climate change might be due to reactance, a motivational psychological state that occurs when one’s perceived freedom to think or act is being threatened. In a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design (N = 623), we varied how mitigation recommendations for transportation were communicated (individual vs. policy appeal) in an online article. Additionally, we manipulated how directly the need to act was stressed (high- vs. low-controlling language). Outcome measures to capture reactance were perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and support for recommended mitigation efforts. Participants in the individual condition reported higher perceived threat to freedom, counterarguing, and showed lower support for the recommendations compared to those in the policy condition. In addition, high-controlling language increased perceptions of freedom threat. Results help clarify public responses to climate change mitigation appeals and offer insights about people’s perspectives on climate change mitigation.

Climate change is one of the most serious threats the world is facing today. Adequately addressing the issue and achieving an ecologically sustainable future, requires fundamental political and individual changes. Politicians are expected to introduce public policy initiatives designed to reduce humans’ impact on the climate, and individuals are expected to support those and take mitigative actions to reduce their carbon footprint. Despite widespread awareness and concern about climate change (European Commission, Citation2020), the global scale of mitigation action is slower than the pace required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement (IPCC, Citation2022). Hence, it seems crucial to appeal for climate action in the public discourse. However, such persuasive messages might be met with resistance when communicators strongly suggest a course of action, especially when they are perceived to restrict the public’s autonomy. One form of resistance against persuasion is psychological reactance, a motivational state aroused by the perception that one’s freedom to think or act in a certain way is being threatened (Brehm & Brehm, Citation1981). The goal of the present study is to investigate the impact of appeals promoting climate change mitigation on people’s psychological reactance and their perspectives on the topic in order to improve the effectiveness of environmental communication initiatives.

Psychological reactance

Psychological reactance theory (PRT; Brehm, Citation1966; Brehm & Brehm, Citation1981) posits that when an individual perceives a threat to a valued freedom, a motivational state called psychological reactance drives the individual to reassert that freedom (Brehm, Citation1966). The theory postulates that even when a message is not contrary to someone’s existing beliefs, efforts at influencing someone’s attitudes, opinions, or behavior can be perceived as a threat to their individual autonomy. The theory further predicts a so-called boomerang effect following state reactance: an individual might eventually engage in the opposite behavior being recommended in an attempt to restore their freedom (Brehm, Citation1966; Brehm & Brehm, Citation1981; Dillard & Shen, Citation2005). Empirical findings seem to support this notion: Bensley and Wu (Citation1991), for instance, found that anti-drinking messages triggered reactance, which, in turn, increased drinking behavior – the opposite behavior than intended by the message.

…

Emphasis mine below

The question of responsibility within the climate change discourse

Although effective solutions to mitigate climate change must address multiple actors, potential measures can be broadly divided into two main branches: those who encourage individuals to adopt behaviors that reduce their own carbon footprint and those who propose more systematic policy efforts to reduce or eliminate carbon emissions (Lubell et al., Citation2007; Zahran et al., Citation2006). Climate change mitigation is “an anthropogenic intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases” (Watson et al., Citation2001, p. 379), such as by introducing renewable energy technologies, minimizing waste, and embracing public transport commuting practices. With this in mind, behavioral efforts that can mitigate climate change comprise reducing emission-intensive consumption as well as supporting climate-related policies and mitigation technologies.

While previous research has shown that although individual and policy efforts have to go hand in hand (Brownstein et al., Citation2022), studies have shown that these two types of solutions to climate change can be perceived differently by the public. When it comes to taking personal responsibility for climate change, people might prefer a top-down solution that would not affect their personal freedom of choice directly: Unsworth et al. (Citation2016) found that people think companies and government have a greater duty to deal with climate change compared to individuals and families. Furthermore, even when the cost to consumers is kept equal, people seem to prefer producers rather than consumers of carbon to be taxed (Hardisty et al., Citation2019). Moreover, Palm et al. (Citation2020) found that recommendations for behavioral changes to address climate change, such as taking fewer plane flights, driving less, eating less beef, etc., decreased individuals’ willingness to take personal actions to reduce greenhouse gases, their willingness to support pro-climate candidates, and their belief in the accelerated speed of climate change, compared to messages emphasizing the adoption of public policy to address climate change.

The present study proposes that one possible mechanism behind the preference for policy in comparison to individual efforts to mitigate climate change might be psychological reactance, as recommending changes in one’s personal lifestyle and habits might arouse people’s perceptions of freedom threat and their motivation to resist such appeals more strongly than recommending public policy measures to mitigate climate change. Furthermore, the magnitude of a request can also have an influence on psychological reactance: Rains and Turner (Citation2007) found that when individuals were asked to perform a large task, they experienced more reactance than individuals asked to perform a small one. It is possible that for an individual, changing one’s behavior on one’s own is perceived as a task larger in magnitude than supporting public policy measures that aim to foster or regulate that same behavior. Hence, we proposed that appealing to an individual course of action increases psychological reactance, compared to appealing to policy solutions to mitigate climate change.

…

Communicating about climate change

While there has been much research on perceptions of climate change communication, less research has focused on how individuals themselves discuss about the topic and what they think about different mitigation measures. In order to take this research area forward, we were interested in examining if aspects of psychological reactance are reflected in the communication of reactant individuals, more specifically on their word use. First, given that reactance is elicited by a threat to an individual’s freedom, we were interested in examining how much people related the content of the climate change mitigation appeal to themselves by referring to themselves. Second, we were interested in how emotionally laden participants’ communication about the topic would be. Most of the research about psychological reactance has been conducted in the context of health communication (Ratcliff, Citation2021). Compared to health communication, climate change communication refers to a topic that is, for many people, less central to their day-to-day life and is often perceived as psychologically distant (Spence et al., Citation2012). Thus, we did not measure anger as a main component of psychological reactance as proposed by Dillard and Shen (Citation2005). However, we were still interested if it impacted the way individuals communicated about the issue.

Present study

In order to study the effect of different types of appeals and controlling language on perceptions of climate change communication, we constructed an online article ostensibly written by a climate scientist in which we manipulated these two factors as independent variables. The article discussed the newest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) results and included recommendations on how to mitigate climate change in the transport sector. We used transportation as a topic of interest due to the high CO2 emissions associated with the sector in Germany (Umweltbundesamt, Citation2022). Using a 2 (type of appeal) × 2 (controlling language) experimental design, we investigated the potential effects of (1) the scientist appealing either to individuals or to policy to mitigate climate change and (2) the scientist using high- or low-controlling language when communicating. We expected higher perceived threat to freedom (H1a), higher counterarguing (H1b), and lower support for the recommendations (H1c) when the scientist appealed to individuals in comparison to policy to mitigate climate change. Furthermore, we hypothesized higher perceived threat to freedom (H2a), higher counterarguing (H2b), and lower support for the recommendations (H2c) when the scientist used high-controlling language compared to low-controlling language when communicating.

The degree to which messages employing controlling language arouse negative persuasive effects might depend on the behavior being advocated. A previous study found the effect of high-threat messages to be more pronounced when the advocated behavior entailed a greater threat to the self (abstinence of alcohol consumption vs. controlled drinking) (Bensley & Wu, Citation1991). Hence, we expect the effect of controlling language on perceived freedom threat (H3a), counterarguing (H3b), and support for the recommendation (H3c) to be stronger in the case where the scientist appealed to individuals in comparison to policy to mitigate climate change.

In line with the idea that perceived freedom threat is an antecedent of psychological reactance, which in turn, influences attitudinal outcomes (Brehm, Citation1966; Ratcliff, Citation2021), we exploratively tested the serial mediation of perceived threat to freedom and counterarguing in the relation of type of appeal and controlling language on support for the recommendations. While we did not pre-register this idea, we were still interested in examining the full reactance model proposed by Dillard and Shen (Citation2005).

Additionally, we also formulated open research questions to examine how participants communicated about climate change mitigation when they were asked about their opinion on effective mitigation measures: Does the content (type of appeal) and language (controlling language) of advocacy statements influence the extent to which participants refer to themselves (RQ1), the number of negative emotional words they use (RQ2), and the type of mitigation measures participants see as effective (RQ3)?

Look…MATH!

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2023.2296844?src=

You can read the full masterpiece here

Foreign Billionaire-Backed Climate Org Pressuring Broadcasters To Censor Ads Critical Of Biden’s EV Mandate

A green nonprofit that is indirectly funded by a foreign billionaire is pressuring broadcasters to drop advertisements that criticize the Biden administration’s massive electric vehicle (EV) agenda.

From The Daily Caller

NICK POPE

CONTRIBUTOR

A green nonprofit that is indirectly funded by a foreign billionaire is pressuring broadcasters to drop advertisements that criticize the Biden administration’s massive electric vehicle (EV) agenda.

Climate Power wrote to numerous broadcasters this week demanding that they stop airing American Fuel and Petrochemicals Manufacturers (AFPM)-funded advertisements in swing state markets that rail against President Joe Biden’s plans to impose widespread EV adoption in the coming years. The charitable organization affiliated with Hansjorg Wyss, a Swiss health care mogul and billionaire philanthropist, donates millions of dollars to the Fund for a Better Future, which was the fiscal sponsor for Climate Power until 2023, a spokesperson for Climate Power previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

AFPM launched its seven-figure ad campaign designed to highlight and criticize the administration’s EV policies on Tuesday. The ads, which describe Biden’s policies as an EV mandate, are airing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio, Montana and Washington, D.C.

Climate Power’s warning letter to local affiliates states that the broadcasters “must remove these ads from the air immediately” because “there is no pending federal ‘car ban,’ and to claim otherwise is patently false and intentionally misleading.” The letter suggests that AFPM’s ads could be in violation of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, and instructs the broadcasters to contact Climate Power — an Internal Revenue Service-recognized 501(c)4 that is spending more than $80 million to tout Biden’s climate policies ahead of the 2024 presidential election — to confirm that the ads are no longer running on their stations. (RELATED: Left-Wing Billionaire’s Nonprofit Is Pushing A TikTok Campaign Against American Energy)

706426880-Climate-Power-LetterHerunterladen

Climate Power strongly disputes that the Biden administration is imposing EV mandates, but the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed tailpipe emissions standards would effectively require 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after model year 2032 to be electric, according to the agency. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) also proposed its own aggressive update to fuel economy standards that would force manufacturers to substantially increase the fuel efficiencies of their fleets to an extent that effectively makes the policy an “EV mandate,” Senior Research Fellow for the Institute for Energy Research Dan Kish previously told the DCNF.

“These ads are filled with lies meant to scare Americans about a ‘car ban’ that doesn’t exist – and they should be taken off the air,” Climate Power Executive Director Lori Lodes said in a Tuesday statement. “The Biden administration isn’t banning gas-powered cars or appliances – they’re fighting against corporate polluters to make our air and water cleaner and give Americans more affordable alternatives to fossil fuel. Big Oil knows that and is intentionally misleading Americans to protect their obscene profits.”

Since 2021, the Berger Action Fund, a 501(c)4 affiliated with Wyss, has given about $40 million to the Fund for a Better Future, a grantmaking organization that shells out funds to support a wide range of left-of-center causes and organizations, according to Politico. The Berger Action Fund has also given more than $77 million to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a “dark money” organization managed by the for-profit consultancy Arabella Advisors that does not have to disclose its donors, since 2021.

Because Wyss is a Swiss citizen, he is not allowed by law to directly donate to American political candidates or political committees, but the activities of his nonprofit and associated organizations have allowed him to quietly become one of the most influential individual donors in American politics today, according to The Associated Press.

In May 2021, Americans for Public Trust — a government watchdog and transparency group — filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that Wyss, his nonprofits and affiliated organizations have “violated fundamental compliance and transparency rules” governing political spending by foreign nationals.

Climate Power did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

High energy costs are a choice – and an act of national self-harm

Cruising up the Channel last week before docking in the Netherlands, was a Chinese vessel that carried 7,000 electric cars. All were manufactured in China, all will undercut rival products made in Europe, and all benefited from state subsidies and energy prices far lower than those in Britain.

Governments like to claim that globalisation means that our destiny is beyond their control. That’s wrong.

Cruising up the Channel last week before docking in the Netherlands, was a Chinese vessel that carried 7,000 electric cars. All were manufactured in China, all will undercut rival products made in Europe, and all benefited from state subsidies and energy prices far lower than those in Britain.

Nothing demonstrates better the absurdity of the myth of international free trade, the failure of the model of globalisation pursued by Western governments for more than two decades, and green policies that have driven industrial production from countries with higher environmental standards to those with little or none.

In Britain, policy has deliberately increased the cost of energy. Yet expensive energy makes British goods less competitive. In foreign markets and at home, British companies lose out to foreign rivals, with cheaper inputs, lower labour market standards, and higher carbon emissions. The Telegraph has the story.

Many consider this progress, but it will soon come to be seen as serious economic, social and geopolitical self-harm.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s Britain generally had the third most competitive industrial electricity costs of the G7 economies. But since then we have performed far worse. In the five years before Tony Blair became prime minister, our industrial electricity costs were around 9 per cent higher than the average of the advanced economies comprising the International Energy Agency. By 2010, they were nearly 23 per cent higher, and for the past five years have risen to 52 per cent higher.

Most European countries have seen prices rise dramatically since Russia invaded Ukraine. But compare British prices with specific countries and the difference is shocking. Our industrial electricity prices are three times higher than in America and Canada. 

They are more than twice as high as in Korea and New Zealand. They are about twice as high as those in European countries – Finland, France and Sweden – with a strong nuclear energy sector, and much higher than those – like Germany and Poland – still using coal to generate power.

In China, responsible for 53 per cent of global coal consumption, and where coal generates 61 per cent of electricity, industrial electricity prices are around a quarter of those in Britain. Add to this low Chinese labour costs and the enormous subsidies provided through cheap loans and steel, and it is clear that this is not free or fair trade at all. Meanwhile, emissions associated with imports to Britain from China have risen 62 per cent since the late 1990s.

We can blame China for abusing the world trading system it joined almost a quarter of a century ago – and indeed the European Union is threatening to impose tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles – but the real problem is with Western naivety. 

China was always going to flout the rules and use the system to its own advantage, and for years Western governments turned a blind eye as it did so: stealing industrial secrets, subsidising whole sectors and dumping surplus goods.

These electric cars are really only a more visible example of what has been going on across industry for at least two decades. One result has been the empowerment of China – a strategic threat and a hostile state – to the extent that it openly backs Russia in Ukraine, undermines international institutions, such as the World Health Organisation, corrupts and sets debt traps for foreign governments, threatens Taiwan and even India, and talks up confrontation in the Pacific with America.

Read the full story here.

Senior Canadian Legislator Tables Bill to Jail People Who Speak Out in Favour of Fossil Fuels

A leading member of a Canadian centre-Left party supporting Justin Trudeau’s minority Government has tabled a bill seeking to jail people who speak out in favour of hydrocarbon fuels.

From The Daily Sceptic

By CHRIS MORRISON

A leading member of a Canadian centre-Left party supporting Justin Trudeau’s minority Government has tabled a bill seeking to jail people who speak out in favour of hydrocarbon fuels. Charlie Angus is a leading member of the NDP party which has 25 seats in the Canadian Parliament, and his bill seeks to ban the commercial promotion of hydrocarbons by any means “that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service”. Angus’s bill (C-372) is given the Orwellian title of ‘An Act respecting fossil fuel advertising’, and under this proposed anti-free speech measure, a gas station retailer could be fined C$50,000 for offering a complementary coffee and doughnut with every full tank.

There is not much between Canada and the North Pole so without natural gas to heat their homes, the locals would likely die in their thousands during the winter. Without diesel trucks to transport food vast distances, famine would stalk the land. Yet Bill C-372 states in its preamble that “fossil fuel production and consumption has resulted in a national public health crisis of substantial and pressing concern, in a way that is similar to the public health crisis caused by tobacco consumption”. Smoking cigarettes is a voluntary and enjoyable pastime for some, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of causing death. Hydrocarbons keep people alive with power for clean sanitation, transport, domestic temperature control, food production and back-up for unreliable wind and solar power. Without hydrocarbon use, the only people able to live in most of Canada would be Eskimos huddled together for warmth in igloos.

Under the bill there is a blanket ban on the promotion of oil and gas. A curious clause bans the suggestion that the burning of some hydrocarbons and the emissions caused are “less harmful” than other fossil fuels. This provision would make it illegal to state the scientific fact that burning natural gas produces less than half the carbon dioxide than the burning of coal. It would also be an offence to suggest that the use of hydrocarbons would lead to positive benefits for the environment, the health of Canadians and the global economy. Whatever the facts based in science or economic observation, all these ‘wrong’ thoughts can be punished with a C$500,000 fine and two years in prison.

The bill’s attack on hydrocarbons is broad and even attempts to suppress sales at the retail level. Gas stations will be banned from issuing loyalty cards, cash rebates, tickets to prize draws and free gifts such as coffee and doughnuts.

If this was just the work of a lone parliamentarian green crank, it would be easy to laugh and dismiss. It is a private member’s bill and will struggle to be passed into law, but its promoter is a major figure in the NDP, and his party currently holds political sway since it helps prop up the minority Trudeau Government. “We welcome the NDP’s bill to the House,” said Kaitlin Power, the Press Secretary of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault. Speaking to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, she added: “We will carefully assess its bill and look forward to productive debates and discussions around this important issue.”

The NDP bill is an attack on free commercial speech and seeks to demonise an industry that is vital to modern life. The belief that Canada, along with every other modern industrialised society, can remove hydrocarbon energy use within less than 30 years is a luxury, decadent affectation. It is the work of politicians with little understanding of science and the workings of a modern state. It fails to comprehend that life without hydrocarbons for 99.9% of people who have lived on planet Earth was hard, brutal and uncertain. Without reliable cheap fuel, all that ‘first generation to go university’ stuff will be replaced by working the land of the local warlord, or skivvying in his great house. It is the work of badly educated people who think they can outsource all their vital manufacturing to the emerging superpower of China, open their borders to all and sundry and squeeze the living conditions of existing residents, abolish traditional families, bend the knee to defund the police, or impose so many woke conditions they are unable to function properly, ditto external security services.

It is the belief system of a cult that wants to impose a massive supra-national programme of deindustrialisation, and still peddle the fantasy that we will magically stay warm, delicious food will be available at the press of an iPhone, and everyone will live in peace and harmony. It is the belief system of people who live in Imagine, one of the great John Lennon’s sillier songs.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

Lithium battery warehouse goes up in flames

A warehouse in France storing lithium batteries caught fire on Saturday, amid growing fears over their safety.
The fire on Saturday afternoon occurred at a storehouse in the southern town of Viviez, in Aveyron, where 900 tons of lithium batteries were waiting to be recycled.

Blaze raises concerns about storage of components known to spontaneously combust

A warehouse in France storing lithium batteries caught fire on Saturday, amid growing fears over their safety.

The fire on Saturday afternoon occurred at a storehouse in the southern town of Viviez, in Aveyron, where 900 tons of lithium batteries were waiting to be recycled. The Telegraph has the story.

Authorities ordered residents to stay indoors and keep their windows closed as thick smoke billowed over the town. No injuries or deaths were reported and the cause of the fire has yet to be established.

Lithium batteries, found in electric scooters and vacuum cleaners, are known to spontaneously combust if they overheat or become damaged. Their dangers have raised concerns in countries where e-bikes have been promoted as a climate-friendly mode of transportation.

Questions raised

Jean-Louis Denoit, the mayor of Viviez, called Saturday’s fire “shocking” and told French news channel BFMTV: “Behind all this, there is indeed reason to ask questions about the function of electric vehicles and lithium batteries.”

It took 70 firefighters to put the fire under control, after which air quality tests were conducted and the lockdown order lifted.

France has moved to promote cycling since the pandemic, with e-bikes becoming hugely popular in cities like Paris. However irresponsible behaviour and a rising number of accidents has led to criticism around their use, and how to store their batteries safely.

Read the full story here.

Give heat pump users a tax break on bills to encourage uptake, Treasury told

Trust Emma Gatten to be writing this nonsense!

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

Trust Emma Gatten to be writing this nonsense!

Up to 20 per cent of running costs are green and social taxes

Heat pump users should be given tax breaks on their energy bill to encourage take up, the Treasury has been urged by lenders and energy companies.

Higher running costs have been identified as one of the reasons for low take up of heat pumps, which the Government is favouring to replace gas boilers to help meet net zero goals.

Up to 20 per cent of the running costs are green and social taxes, including payments for wind farms and subsidies for fuel for poor homes.

Sixteen organisations, including Nationwide and energy giant EDF, have written to the Treasury calling on them to remove these levies from a proportion of the energy bill for electrically heated homes.

This would include around 250,000 homes using heat pumps and another 2.3 million that use direct electric heating such as radiators.

The UK has one of the lowest heat pump installation rates in Europe, with just 69,000 installed in 2021, well below the Government target for 600,000 by 2028

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/18/give-heat-pump-users-tax-break-bills-encourage-uptake

For a start, silly little Emma, these are neither green nor social taxes. Get a grip and call them what they really are – subsidies for renewables. As these form part of the cost of electricity, they belong in the price of electricity, not gas, or for that matter anything else.

The idea that people are suddenly going to go out and spend fifteen grand on a heat pump, just to save £130 is absurd.

Still it is good to see that they are now admitting that heat pumps are dearer to run than a gas boiler, something I have been pointing out for ages.

If a subsidy of £7500 is not enough to persuade people to buy, maybe it is time to drop the whole absurd agenda.