Day: May 1, 2024

Jet Zero

In June 2023 I wrote Pigs Might Fly, a tongue-in-cheek look at the issue of so-called Sustainable Aviation Fuels. At the time both the BBC and the Guardian were pushing website articles about the issue. Subsequently, unless I have missed something, they have gone quiet.

It’s up in the air

From Climate Scepticism

BY MARK HODGSON

Ethanol to Jet Infographic

In June 2023 I wrote Pigs Might Fly, a tongue-in-cheek look at the issue of so-called Sustainable Aviation Fuels. At the time both the BBC and the Guardian were pushing website articles about the issue. Subsequently, unless I have missed something, they have gone quiet. Perhaps the press releases from those who seek to make the news have stopped landing on journalists’ desks. Whatever the reason for the lull in news stories about this topic, it hasn’t gone away. I have written before about the (seemingly always net zero-related) conferences organised by the Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum (WEET), and recently a plug for another one landed in my email in-box.

The conference in question is due to take place tomorrow morning, and is headed “Next steps for aviation decarbonisation in the UK”. The conference breaks down into five main discussion areas. Ideally I would take each in turn, but I may have to return to most of them in subsequent articles. For current purposes I simply want to discuss Jet Zero.

The keynote speaker under this heading is a deputy director for Aviation Climate Change (yes, really) at the Department for Transport. Did you know that the UK Department for Transport has a Jet Zero Strategy? No? Neither did I until I read the notes for the WEET conference. Not only that, but a glossy online report was published in July 2022 (sub-title: “Delivering net zero aviation by 2050”), running to some 83 pages including end pages, endnotes, introduction, etc. It’s signed off by Grant Shapps, as Transport Secretary, and by two junior ministers: one for aviation, and one for “Transport Decarbonisation” – to my shame, not only did I not previously know that there was a Transport Decarbonisation Minister, but I was unaware that this role is performed by the MP for the constituency neighbouring my own.

The Foreword alone is worrying, before getting in to the detail of the report. The hubris, and belief in the mantra (to be reported in every official document, it seems), is unshakeable:

Our target of net zero flying by 2050 is hugely challenging. Not just because aircraft have always relied on fossil fuels, but because aviation is only just restarting in earnest after two years of intense disruption. The COVID-19 pandemic has, however, also given us an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a stronger, fairer and greener way, with aviation as part of the solution to climate change, rather than just a major contributor of carbon emissions.

In fairness, the report was published before reality dawned on the Scottish government that setting unrealistic targets is one thing, achieving them is another, and so we are told:

The strategy is underpinned by an overarching approach and three principles. We are setting clear decarbonisation goals; in addition to the 2050 net zero target, we want all domestic flights to achieve net zero by 2040 and for all airport operations in England to be zero emission by the same year. We will be setting an emission reduction trajectory for the sector and will be monitoring progress through five-year reviews.

Does it matter that they don’t know how to achieve this and that technologies don’t yet exist to make it happen? Not really:

We recognise that many of the technologies needed to decarbonise the sector are at an early stage of development and therefore this approach is essential to allow new technology to be developed, tested and adopted across the industry.

Translation: it’s OK to jump out of the aeroplane without a parachute, because you’ll miraculously find one before you hit the ground.

Apparently COP26 led to the launching of an International Aviation Climate Ambition Coalition (ICAO). I followed the footnoted link to the page of the UK Government website that tells us about it, and from this I learned that – unlike the various agreements concluded rather feebly at the end of each COP – it was signed by a modest number of states: just 60, to be precise. And of those 60 states, the key takeaway is that except for the usual virtue-signalling developed countries (UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, EU member states), most of the “big hitters” declined to be part of it. You will search in vain for China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Gulf Oil states, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Australia. No disrespect to them, but given their minor contributions to greenhouse gases (both generally, and via aviation) it’s difficult to see how participation by Albania, Belize, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Cote D’Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Georgia, Madagascar, Maldives, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Niger, North Macedonia, Papua New Guinea and Trinda & Tobago can offset the absence of the absentees mentioned above. Then again, if Mr Sunak gets his way, perhaps the participation of Rwanda will yet prove to be significant.

In any event, the non-binding and vague nature of its aspirations are likely to render it about as effective as the non-binding and vague Paris Climate Agreement. I particularly liked this clause (2):

Supporting the adoption by ICAO of an ambitious long-term aspirational goal consistent with the above-referenced temperature limit, and in view of the industry’s commitments towards net zero CO2 emissions by 2050.

And this one (5):

Promoting the development and deployment, through international and national measures, of innovative new low- and zero-carbon aircraft technologies that can reduce aviation CO2 emissions.

And this one (8):

Convening periodically at both ministerial and official levels with a view to advancing and reviewing progress on the above commitments.

I particularly like the plaintive conclusion:

We invite other states to commit to this declaration and work with us towards our shared objectives.

Dream on.

But I digress. Back to the Net Zero Foreword. What other aspirations does it reveal?

The sector will have to undergo significant changes in the coming decades but with that comes opportunities to create new jobs, develop new industries with innovative new technologies, and improve our energy security as a nation, therefore maximising these opportunities will also be an integral part of our approach.

It seems that, just as costs must also be described as an investment, threats must always be portrayed as opportunities. And the steady destruction of the UK’s energy security must always be described as enhancing it.

As for the Sustainable Aviation Fuel that I discussed in Pigs Might Fly, well everything is going just fine (with a substantial bit of help from the taxpayer, as always):

We have already seen real progress, with Phillips 66 producing and providing the first commercially produced sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in the UK. We have committed £180 million of funding to support the development of a UK SAF industry, and our aim is to unlock further private financing to develop our very own SAF plants with a commitment to have at least five plants under construction by 2025.

That date is now just a year away. I wonder how that’s going?

They speculate (in a triumph of hope over reality) that “…domestic production of SAF could support up to 5,200 UK jobs by 2035…”. This claim links to a footnote which takes us to the 100 page long Sustainable Aviation Fuels Road-Map, should you be interested. Perhaps I am becoming jaded after looking at interminable numbers of these glossily (and no doubt expensively) produced tributes to the power of optimism, but having skim-read it, I remain unconvinced.

That £180 million doesn’t represent the half of it, by the way:

…government has a role to play in supporting Research and Development (R&D) to take these new technologies to market. For example, we recently committed a record £685 million over three years in UK aerospace R&D through the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI) Programme.

Moving in to the body of the Report, and I learn next of the existence of a Jet Zero Council:

The Jet Zero Council (JZC) is a partnership between industry, academia and government to bring together ministers and chief executive officer-level stakeholders, with the aim of delivering at least 10% sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in the UK fuel mix by 2030 and zero emission transatlantic flight within a generation, driving the ambitious delivery of new technologies and innovative ways to cut aviation emissions.

Its ninth meeting, which took place on 8th November 2023, seems to be the most recent meeting for which minutes are available. Reading them made me profoundly depressed, though I was mildly encouraged by the fact that Claire Coutinho apparently had better things to do, and her apologies for absence were noted. Here’s a flavour of what can be found there:

On non-CO2, Secretary of State noted the newly established non-CO2 task and finish group, who met earlier that week, as well as the Government’s recently launched non-CO2 multi-million-pound research project. [Yet more taxpayer money being spent on Net Zero]…

…Holly Greig (DfT) explained why GGRs [Greenhouse Gas Removals] are important for aviation in achieving Jet Zero and the role set out for them in the Jet Zero Strategy. She emphasised Government’s commitment to maximising in sector reduction but noted that despite the emergence of new technologies and fuels, the UK aviation sector will still have significant residual emissions in 2050 and that GGRs will therefore be crucial for meeting net zero…

...Council members noted increasing uptake of SAF but recognised there is still a long way to go…

…Baroness Vere thanked JZC members for attending noting the quality of the presentations were excellent, commending the number of women presenting…

[I’m all in favour of a level playing-field for women and for eliminating sexism, but I’m not convinced that this really is relevant for minuting].

…She noted the need for greater engagement with the private finance sector and looked forward to the hydrogen discussion planned for Jet Zero Council 10 in early 2024.

It’s now almost the end of April. Has the tenth meeting yet taken place?

Section 2 deals with the “three core principles”. The first is international leadership:

Leading coordinated global efforts to tackle international aviation emissions, including through our ongoing work in the International Civil Aviation Organization.

As we saw above, that doesn’t seem to be going very well at all, with the major emitters declining to participate.

The second is “Delivered in partnership”:

Working with all parts of the sector and different partners to develop, test, implement and invest in the solutions we need.

Judging by the quote from the minutes of the ninth Jet Zero Council meeting quoted above, that doesn’t seem to be going too well either.

The third is “Maximising opportunities”. Regrettably this is just the same pious claptrap that we have heard time and time again, but which never seems to materialise:

Using the opportunity of the Jet Zero transition to boost our economy, create new jobs, develop new industries, and become a more energy secure nation.

Afterthought

My wife and I recently took a foreign holiday for the first time in years – ironically we almost certainly have much lower “carbon footprints” than your average climate warrior. As we wandered round Antibes and the surrounding area, we were struck by the relentless numbers of aeroplanes constantly flying in and out of Nice Airport. One small airport, such a huge number of aeroplanes. Multiply that by all of the airports in the world (a number that is growing substantially, especially in China and India) and it is clear that after the pandemic shock, aviation has fully recovered, and continues to grow.

Speaking of China and India, the other thing that struck us, holidaying abroad for the first time in years, is how the number of Chinese and Indian tourists seems to have increased almost exponentially. I suppose that shouldn’t come as a surprise, given the growth of a populous wealthy Chinese and Indian middle class who share the aspirations of the rest of the world to travel and to enjoy new experiences. However, that being the case, the absence of any interest by the Chinese and Indian governments in the International Aviation Climate Ambition Coalition strikes me as hugely significant. As always, it seems, the west virtue-signals, China, India and much of the rest of the world shrug their shoulders and carry on regardless.

Forbes Calls BS on the latest Climate Economics Doomsday Prediction

There is no historical evidence which suggests the next 0.5C of warming, if it occurs, would be any worse than what we have already experienced. There is no evidence extreme weather is getting worse, despite the predictions of climate models which were used as the basis of the study quoted above.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

”… While I am not an economist, in my opinion the data seems flawed. …”

New Study: Climate Change Could Reduce The World Economy 19% By 2049

Jon McGowan
Contributor

I am an attorney who writes about ESG policy, laws, and regulations.

A new study claims that loss of productivity because of climate change could result in a 19% reduction in the world economy by 2049. Despite the number being significantly higher than previous studies, the authors claim their numbers are conservative and could be as high 29% of the global GDP. Climate activists were quick to latch onto the study, calling for more aggressive measures to prevent climate change and fund mitigation efforts.

The study, The economic commitment of climate change, was published in Nature on April 17 by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, also known as PIK, a non-profit organization funded by the German government.

…

While I am not an economist, in my opinion the data seems flawed. According to a study published by NOAA in January 2024, the average temperature has risen 2° F since 1850. In that same period, the global GDP increased from $1.73 trillion to $134.08 trillion. If we accept the climate projection models used in the study, it dismisses the resiliency of human nature and our ability to overcome economic challenges.

…Read more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmcgowan/2024/04/29/new-study-climate-change-could-reduce-the-world-economy-19-by-2049/?sh=7c99ce5440b8

The abstract of the study;

The economic commitment of climate change

Abstract

Global projections of macroeconomic climate-change damages typically consider impacts from average annual and national temperatures over long time horizons1,2,3,4,5,6. Here we use recent empirical findings from more than 1,600 regions worldwide over the past 40 years to project sub-national damages from temperature and precipitation, including daily variability and extremes7,8. Using an empirical approach that provides a robust lower bound on the persistence of impacts on economic growth, we find that the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices (relative to a baseline without climate impacts, likely range of 11–29% accounting for physical climate and empirical uncertainty). These damages already outweigh the mitigation costs required to limit global warming to 2 °C by sixfold over this near-term time frame and thereafter diverge strongly dependent on emission choices. Committed damages arise predominantly through changes in average temperature, but accounting for further climatic components raises estimates by approximately 50% and leads to stronger regional heterogeneity. Committed losses are projected for all regions except those at very high latitudes, at which reductions in temperature variability bring benefits. The largest losses are committed at lower latitudes in regions with lower cumulative historical emissions and lower present-day income.Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0

Spot on Jon McGowan – it’s near impossible to produce a scary projection without making some pretty questionable assumptions. From the study above;

… Following a well-developed literature2,3,19, these projections do not aim to provide a prediction of future economic growth. Instead, they are a projection of the exogenous impact of future climate conditions on the economy relative to the baselines specified by socio-economic projections, based on the plausibly causal relationships inferred by the empirical models and assuming ceteris paribus. Other exogenous factors relevant for the prediction of economic output are purposefully assumed constant. …Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0

Holding as many variables as possible static, while changing only those variables you want to study, is a time honoured method of analysing complex systems.

But as the authors admit, their study is not realistic. My understanding of the study is they are attempting to abstract the impact say more extreme weather would have on the economy, if nobody attempted to mitigate these problems, say by building better drainage and water management systems to manage floods, and bigger reservoirs to maintain agricultural output during severe droughts.

As Forbes author Jon McGowan rightly points out, there are good reasons to doubt the real world applicability of the predictions of the study, even if we pretend their admittedly unrealistic assumptions are realistic.

Why would the next 0.5C of warming be so much worse than the previous 0.5C of warming?

There is no historical evidence which suggests the next 0.5C of warming, if it occurs, would be any worse than what we have already experienced. There is no evidence extreme weather is getting worse, despite the predictions of climate models which were used as the basis of the study quoted above.

In fact there are good reasons to believe additional warming might produce a better climate for humans.

Global warming is not evenly distributed across the world. Polar amplification is the observed strong tendency for global warming to be pushed away from the equator to where it is actually needed.

If global warming continues, by 2049 there is a very good chance there will be more viable agricultural land available for our use, not less. Canadian Geographic admitted in 2020 that global warming is opening millions of square kilometres of new agricultural land, and will continue to do so if the world continues to warm.

I’m personally pleased Jon McGowan and Forbes published this rare criticism of alarmist global warming tropes. Let’s hope more news outlets and authors find the courage in future to question the steady stream of increasingly exaggerated and implausible claims of how doomed we all are.

Economic education has become economic disinformation

Modern economics is in terrible shape. But economics education appears to be worse still. This becomes clear when discussing basic economics with those who have taken courses in the field. Rather than doing away with economic misunderstandings and outright nonsense, economics education apparently provides students with a pseudoscientific rationale for their illusions.

From CFACT

BY PER BYLUND:

Modern economics is in terrible shape. But economics education appears to be worse still. This becomes clear when discussing basic economics with those who have taken courses in the field. Rather than doing away with economic misunderstandings and outright nonsense, economics education apparently provides students with a pseudoscientific rationale for their illusions.

Two such ideas are annoyingly common. One is the view that markets can only work under perfect conditions. The other is that economic growth requires that profits tend toward zero. Yes, they are ridiculous, but they are so commonly held (and believed so strongly) that they suggest a fundamental failure of economics education. Whether or not they are explicitly taught, it is easy to see how an economics education that focuses on models rather than understanding can lead to—if not create—such misperceptions.

“Markets Only Work under Perfect Conditions”

Introductory economics courses often take the perfectly competitive model as a starting point so as to introduce students to economic thinking. It makes sense to do it this way. By assuming away complexities, students can be introduced to the economic way of thinking, ceteris paribus reasoning, and supply-and-demand analysis.

The approach is innocent but can be counterproductive or even destructive unless students also learn that a model is merely a simplified version of (and thus different from) reality. The model is not reality, and its assumptions are not real, but because of its simplified assumptions, it facilitates analysis of reality. A model is a tool.

This obvious fact seems to not be communicated to economics students, who instead adopt the model wholesale as not only a description of but a necessary condition for reality. In other words, because the supply-and-demand diagram used on the blackboard relies on “perfect information,” many students conclude that real markets only work under such conditions.

It is of course the other way around: markets work because they solve or alleviate the problems that are excluded from the model. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out, there is no competition in the perfectly competitive model. All such activities are assumed to have already taken place so that the allocation under end-state efficiency can be explained—and the economic trend in markets therefore uncovered. But students somehow learn the exact opposite.

“Economic Growth Requires That Profits Tend toward Zero”

This idea is similarly a misapplication and misunderstanding of a model presented to students. In the static model of the economy, under assumptions of perfect information and zero transaction costs, economic profits will be zero. This is mainstream economists’ rather quirky explanation of economic efficiency: because all opportunities have already been taken advantage of, value production is maximized.

As follows from this model logically, profits tend toward zero as market reality closes in on “perfect” competition assumptions (that is, the problems are solved or alleviated). There is empirical support for this, too: profits tend to fall in commodity markets and mature industries that are no longer innovative (the low-hanging fruits have been picked). Producers compete on cost rather than value. But this does not mean the economy is in an end-state; it only means some industries (such as grain production) have come to the end of the road in terms of product development—entrepreneurs see little or no opportunities for new value creation.

In reality, economic growth is the process of closing in on this highly theoretical end-state (which we, as Austrians realize is only theoretical—it cannot and never will be achieved). Our higher standard of living (economic growth) is the result of innovations that create more value—it is not the result of an absence of innovations.

Education as Disinformation

That students struggle with understanding the use and value of models, and may draw the wrong conclusions when studying market forces in the abstract, is unfortunate but understandable. It is the duty of the economics instructor to make sure students do not get the wrong ideas—that they go home with a greater understanding of how economies and markets work. Education, after all, should be enlightening and provide the student with new knowledge.

But somehow, economics education fails to communicate the obvious fact that markets solve problems, not that they require that all problems have already been solved. And that economic growth is the creation of new value, not the absence of creating such value.

The failure of economics education is not merely the unproductive use of instructors’ and students’ time. As the above examples show, it is, in fact, destructive—students of economics get the wrong ideas and, therefore, graduate with less (not more) understanding of how markets and economies work.

Economics education with this outcome is disinformation, and we are better off without it.

Per Bylund, PhD is a Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute and Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship and Johnny D…

This article originally appeared at The Mises Wire

Mainstream Media Falls for Weather Attribution Con Again Over Dubai’s Flooding

A few media outlets, including CNN and BBC, have run recent articles talking about flooding in Dubai, claiming that climate change made the storms worse. This is false. There is no evidence that climate change made the rain more extreme, instead, evidence actually indicates that El Niño and even cloud seeding may have contributed.

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A few media outlets, including CNN and BBC, have run recent articles talking about flooding in Dubai, claiming that climate change made the storms worse. This is false. There is no evidence that climate change made the rain more extreme, instead, evidence actually indicates that El Niño and even cloud seeding may have contributed.

Both the BBC’s article, “Deadly Dubai floods made worse by climate change,” and the one posted by CNN, “Scientists find the fingerprints of climate change on Dubai’s deadly floods,” reference a study done by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group, which claimed that climate change made the rain events 10 to 40 percent more intense than if global warming was not occurring.

CNN’s writer says global warming is the likely driver of heavy rainfall in Dubai “because the atmosphere in a 1.2-degree warmer world can now hold 8.4% more moisture, which is making extreme rain events more intense.”

These claims are nonsense, and worse, non-scientific, for the simple reason that not only does data not show that heavy rainfall is becoming more intense or common, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) doesn’t even claim that any sign whatsoever will even begin to emerge, according to their own projections, until well into the future.

As discussed by meteorologist Anthony Watts in a previous Climate Realism post on the extreme rain in Dubai, the latest claims from the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report show that “heavy precipitation and pluvial flooding” has not yet emerged in the current “historical period.” They have found no climate signal related to heavy rain. (See figure below)

Figure 1 – Table 12.12 | on Page 90 – Chapter 12 of the UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report. Emergence of Climate Impact Drivers (CIDs)

Even if there was a climate signal in the broader data, the modelling done by WWA does not reflect real-world conditions and actually proves nothing at all. Again, several previous posts at Climate Realism (here, here, and here, as samples) have discussed in detail the issues with weather attribution “science.”

The best description of how these attribution studies work was given by statistician Dr. William Briggs in a paper compiled by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Dr. Briggs wrote:

All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.

Fundamentally, attribution science cannot be proof of human influences on the weather via climate change, because it begins with the assumption that any given weather event is being influenced by climate change. In other words, the model is designed with the outcome in mind, making it impossible for them to “discover” anything to the contrary. In WWA’s rapidly produced attribution studies the question is never whether climate change contributed to a particular extreme weather event, but rather only, how much additional ferocity did it cause.

The WWA models cannot prove that the heavy rain in Dubai, and resultant flooding, was caused by climate change at all, much less attribute a particular percentage of the rain to climate change.

Both the BBC and CNN grudgingly acknowledge but play down the role El Niño had in the storms and flooding, despite the fact that it is a much more likely to be a contributing factor for the heavy rainfall than long-term climate change. El Niño has a significant influence on weather patterns around the world, including the United Arab Emirates. A 2016 study found that El Niño has been associated with extreme rainfall in UAE during multiple years, going back to 1982.

Although recent reports have seen the government backpedaling on this claim, when the flood stories first broke, a UAE National Center of Meteorology scientist admitted to Bloomberg that cloud seeding experiments were being run in the days leading up to the storms. This may also have played a role.

It is remarkable that journalists continue to fall for the attribution modelling con, assuming they are seeking the truth when it comes to the impact of the modest warming of the past century. However, if these journalists are instead intending to act as just a mouthpiece for weather attribution propaganda in furtherance of the climate crisis narrative, then they are guilty of knowingly deceiving their audiences who may lack the background knowledge allowing them to recognize that attribution modelling, as currently practiced, is unscientific. In either case, the BBC and CNN are misleading their readers.

Britain must spend £30bn to strip CO2 from atmosphere and hit net zero, experts warn

Britain must invest £30bn in a network of massive air cleansing systems designed to strip CO2 from the atmosphere if it is to reach net zero, a government-funded report has warned.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Doug Brodie

Britain must invest £30bn in a network of massive air cleansing systems designed to strip CO2 from the atmosphere if it is to reach net zero, a government-funded report has warned.

The “direct air carbon capture systems” would remove up to 48 million tonnes of CO2 from the air each year and then pump it into disused oil and gas reservoirs under the North Sea or Irish Sea.

Without such a scheme the UK will never reach its target of net zero emissions by 2050, according to the report by Energy Systems Catapult, a government-funded body that promotes innovation.

It also warns that direct capture will be essential if the UK is to maintain an aviation industry, because aircraft are unlikely ever to run entirely on sustainable fuels.

“Beyond 2040 we see few options to abate remaining emissions so use of direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) will be required,” it said.

“Direct air capture would collect 38-48 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2050. This technology appears to be essential to meeting net zero in all our scenarios and yet remains unproven at scale.”

Direct air capture plants would need to be built along the UK’s east coast, from East Anglia to Aberdeen, so that the CO2 captured could be pumped to storage sites under the North Sea, the study said.

The Climate Change Committee, which advises the Government, has described direct air capture as “a necessity, not an option”, for the UK to meet its net zero targets.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere was essential in helping the UK achieve energy security and independence.

The spokesman added: “The UK has one of the greatest CO2 storage potentials of any country in the world, with the North Sea having the potential to hold an estimated 78 billion tonnes. We are tapping into this potential by investing £20bn in carbon capture and storage, driving economic growth and supporting up to 50,000 jobs.

“We are also investing up to £100m in research and innovation for greenhouse gas removal technologies such as Direct Air Capture.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/28/britain-30bn-strip-co2-atmosphere-hit-net-zero

If the Government has any backbone, it would throw this report in the bin, and assure the public it will not under any circumstances waste taxpayers’ money on green virtue signalling.

After all, if aviation emissions cannot be eliminated, this means the rest of the world will be in the same position, so why should we pay for something which will make no difference?

And as the report admits, they have no idea how or whether this daft idea will actually work. So they also have no idea of its cost – it might be £30bn, or it might be £300bn.

No sane government, (which would rule out one with Ed Miliband in charge!) should even contemplate going down this avenue.

Quite where DESNZ gets the idea that “removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere was essential in helping the UK achieve energy security and independence” is a mystery! Indeed, these carbon capture devices won’t run on moonshine – they will need energy, and lots of it, in turn reducing our energy security.

And as one commenter points out, the report does no come from a “promoter of innovation”, but a govt funded climate change advocacy group:

Biden subsidizes Carmageddon

The Biden administration is pushing extremely costly policies that encourage the adoption of Low Carbon Fuel Standards and force the production of electric vehicles under the guise of reducing carbon emissions. However, these measures would have a very small impact on emissions. Rather than improving the capabilities and efficiency of vehicles on our roads, these measures empty Americans’ pockets and upend consumer choice.

From CFACT

By Lloyd Rowland:

The Biden administration is pushing extremely costly policies that encourage the adoption of Low Carbon Fuel Standards and force the production of electric vehicles under the guise of reducing carbon emissions. However, these measures would have a very small impact on emissions. Rather than improving the capabilities and efficiency of vehicles on our roads, these measures empty Americans’ pockets and upend consumer choice.

Restrictions on carbon dioxide have caused significant pain at the pump for all Americans. California and Washington are leading the charge on these restrictions, and their residents are paying the price. Low carbon fuel standards in these states have driven fuel costs to over $5 a gallon. According to the Institute for Energy Research, the passage of Washington’s Climate Commitment Act resulted in a whopping 45-cent-per-gallon increase in gasoline prices.

That number is almost four times the increase promised by supporters of the Low Carbon Fuel Standards, which was supposed to be no higher than 12 cents per gallon. When reporters dug into the story, they learned that Washington director for Climate Solutions, Kelly Hall, stated that increasing the cost of gasoline as a means of encouraging “the transition away from fossil fuels” was always “part of the point of this policy.”

Unfortunately, policies mandating electric vehicles are also predicted to raise the costs of vehicle ownership. Currently, electric vehicles are substantially more expensive than gas-powered cars. The Heritage Foundation explains that the 2023 Ford F150 Lightning costs around $10,000 more than a comparable gas truck.

Higher per-vehicle prices for electric vehicles are largely due to the costs of materials such as lithium and cobalt, which are essential in the production of EV batteries. Battery cost and the difficulty of screening for damage following an accident also mean that electric vehicles are more expensive to insure and repair. Recent studies undermine the common claim that — with fewer parts to maintain — electric vehicles will be easier to repair and maintain. A November study published by Solera explains that “on average, EV repair costs are 29% higher than internal combustion vehicles globally.” The study also notes a distinct “parts cost disparity: EV parts are, on average, 48% more expensive, including components like high-voltage batteries and control units.”

Large-scale adoption of electric vehicles could also drive up the prices of standard vehicles as manufacturers attempt to recoup losses incurred by sluggish EV sales. According to Road & Track, Ford alone is set to lose $4.5 billion on electric vehicles this year. Lagging EV sales would seem to indicate that customers do not want fully electric vehicles. Traditional vehicles are more affordable, possess a longer range, and lose less mileage in cold weather. Consumers are understandably hesitant to make the switch to an electric car, and manufacturers are increasingly hard-pressed to offset these losses.

Facing growing resistance, the Biden administration has resorted to subverting consumer choice with incentives and mandates for buyers and manufacturers designed to get the public on board with the electrification agenda. These take several forms, including credits toward the purchase of electric vehicles. According to the Internal Revenue Service, these credits add up to a maximum of $7,500 and apply to vehicles up to $80,000 MSRP. Qualifying households may make up to $300,000 in certain cases, meaning federal policy supports the regressive plan of taxing the poor and middle class to subsidize electric vehicles for wealthy car buyers.

According to the Heritage Foundation, proposed EPA regulations constitute a backdoor mandate that two-thirds of new cars sold in the United States must be electric by 2032. The Biden Administration is also paying auto and battery manufacturers a combined $15.5 billion to produce electric vehicles, although consumer demand appears to be plateauing and EVs are piling up on dealer lots.

Under normal market conditions, these EV ventures would likely be short-lived, given the billions of dollars in losses they incur. However, the existence of subsidies encourages automakers to continue working on unpopular products.

With policies like these in place, Americans will increasingly find themselves priced out of vehicle ownership as government overreach undermines consumer choice. Dealerships and manufacturers will find their lots overflowing with vehicles that consumers either do not want or cannot afford. To stave off this carmageddon, our country should prioritize an economically sound policy that makes cars and fuel more affordable and puts consumers back in the driver’s seat.

This article originally appeared at Mackinac

Offshore Wind Industry Targets Australian Coastline For Wholesale Whale Slaughter

Further, confused and disorientated whales are driven away from their natural feeding grounds by the noise generated underwater by sonic mapping and turbine construction and into areas where food is scarce, leaving them hungry, prone to disease, and liable to end up beached in shallow water.

From STOP THESE THINGS

The ultra-high-decibel sonar emitted by wind industry survey vessels during wind farm construction deafens marine mammals, so does piledriving: the repetitive, percussive pounding of the columns that support the turbines (see above); the piles are 8m in diameter and over 100m long – 30-60m of which gets punched into the seabed.

The offshore wind industry is killing whales and other marine mammals by a variety of means, including collisions with boat traffic in areas where there previously was none. Whales and other marine mammals – deafened in the manner described above – become disorientated, calves become separated from their mothers and prone to fatal or mortal collisions with surface vessels – particularly those used in the construction of offshore turbines, cabling and other infrastructure.

Further, confused and disorientated whales are driven away from their natural feeding grounds by the noise generated underwater by sonic mapping and turbine construction and into areas where food is scarce, leaving them hungry, prone to disease, and liable to end up beached in shallow water.

The wind industry has been killing an increasing number of whales, dolphins and porpoises all along America’s Atlantic coast for years now – and doing so with complete impunity, thanks to US Federal government authorisations euphemistically called the ‘Incidental Harassment Authorization’.

The underwater cacophony created during offshore construction is laid out in Michael Shellenberger’s documentary Thrown To The Wind (see the video below) and this post: US Govt Lying About Offshore Wind Industry’s Whale Slaughter

Now the wind industry wants to repeat the slaughter in Australia, targeting its southern coastline, including the south-west coast of Western Australia and Victoria where, as detailed in the 2nd article, local Aboriginal groups are furious about the damage the proposed offshore wind industry will cause to whales and other marine mammals.

Federal government proposes wind farm in the middle of a whale migration route
News.com
Emma Kirk
9 April 2024

In what is believed to be a world first, the federal government has proposed developing an offshore wind farm in the middle of a whale super highway off Western Australia’s southwest coast.

Each year, tens of thousands of whales use the water in and around Geographe Bay on their annual migration to Antarctica.

The bay is described as a pristine marine ecosystem off Bunbury, about 168km south of Perth, and stretches 98km along the coastline to Cape Naturaliste, between Dunsborough and Yallingup.

The area is one of WA’s most popular tourist destinations and recreational playgrounds, with endless sandy beaches, turquoise waters and an abundance of marine life.

More than 30,000 humpback whales pass through Geographe Bay on their way south as they head towards their feeding grounds.

Endangered southern right whales use the bay to rest and nurse their calves.

The community is in disbelief that an offshore wind farm has been proposed in Geographe Bay and say there has been a lack of information and consultation from authorities.

Geographe Marine Research have monitored the movement of whales through the bay for years and believe a wind farm would be better located on land.

They recently started tagging blue whales in the area and have recorded whales outside the bay area using an acoustic data log, inside the proposed wind farm zone.

Geographe Bay Marine research board member Rodney Peterson said their concern was that the wind farm would be the world’s first in a whale migration route.

“No one can predict how the whales will react to that,” he said.

“It wasn’t that long ago that we nearly wiped whales off the planet.

“The blue whales and southern right populations haven’t come back like the humpbacks.

“We need to see more details about the wind farm and the area that is being proposed.

“The government has not come forward with any details and that is what’s lacking.

“They just need to come forward with research to show why this is a good area, although if they did the research, they would probably find it is not a good area.

“We nearly killed all these whales now we are going to do this to their migration path.”

In February, the federal government started seeking community feedback on the proposed wind farm area, which could span about 7674 sqkm

While the project is still in the early stages, if the area is approved by the federal and state governments, it could be located 20km to 70km off the populated coastline.

One of the proponents looking at the project is Copenhagen Energy, a Danish renewable energy developer, which is looking at up to 200 wind turbines operating in the proposed area.

Copenhagen Energy has submitted an application to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water based on their initial environmental, social and economic studies.

A self-proclaimed ocean rat and fourth generation diver Kyle Treloar said he “just loved the water” and shed a tear when he learnt about the proposed wind farm.

He started a group called Save Our Beloved Geographe Bay for the community to share information about the wind farm and images from beneath the sea because many people were unaware of the marine life that lived there.

“Some people are absolutely terrified, it is a way of life, it is business and tourism,” he said.

“We still shake our heads that this is a thing.

“I don’t know how you can put industrialisation over a pristine ecosystem the last thing we need is big spinning structures.”

Mr Treloar has been mapping the underwater environment to give people a better perspective of the marine ecosystem off the coast.

He said they had picked the biggest reef and coral system south of Mandurah.

“The government is willing to risk all this for something that benefits industry,” he said.

“The turbines proposed are 280m tall and 20km away, they have to put the turbines straight over the coral which has a lot of people upset.

“They have done no environmental impact (study), they just picked an area and haven’t looked at what’s at stake.

“When you talk about people’s recreational activities, the thought of losing that is diabolic.”

WA Liberal leader Libby Mettam said she shared community concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the project and believed the consultation process so far has raised more questions than answers.

“The offshore wind farms will have a profound effect on our beautiful coastline and yet there are still many unanswered questions about the full impact it will have on the health and wellbeing of residents living in nearby coastal communities but also on whales, migratory birds and our fish stock,” she said.

“The recent community consultation sessions provided no constructive information or reassurance.

“Residents deserve open and transparent information about the impact of the project and it is not unreasonable to expect the federal government to be able to provide details by this stage of the planning process.

“I have met with southwest locals who are understandably outraged by the process so far, and I will continue to work alongside them to ensure this proposal does not go ahead.”
News.com

‘Undermines our sovereignty’: Custodians speak out against wind farm zone
The Standard
Jessica Greenan
7 April 2024

The custodians of an area of sea country marked as an offshore wind farm zone off the south-west coast say the decision has shown “disregard for our voices”.

It comes as both the Gunditj Mirring and Eastern Maar Aboriginal corporations expressed their disappointment at the announcement made by Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen on March 6.

In a statement, Gunditj Mirring said there’d been a “complete lack of appropriate and meaningful consultation between the commonwealth government and the Gunditjmara community”.

“By excluding us from the decision-making process, the government has not only demonstrated a disregard for our voices, perspectives and rights, it has overlooked an opportunity to engage and learn the true value and history of our sea country from its traditional owners,” it said.

“Whilst GMTOAC supports the agenda for environmental protection and climate change, this decision undermines our sovereignty as land rights holders.”

The statement said the corporation had written two letters and a submission opposing the designated area and had highlighted the need for further independent research to assess the cultural and environmental impacts of such a designation.

Eastern Maar Aboriginal Corporation said in a statement it supported decarbonising traditional energy sources and understood the critical role it played in combating climate change.

“However we firmly believe that the pursuit of decarbonisation must not come at the expense of marine life that we are inextricably linked to,” it said.

The statement said the corporation had concerns about the impacts on the migratory paths, feeding grounds and nursery areas of the “highly endangered and culturally significant Koontapool (Southern Right whale) species that utilise the oceans and coastlines of south-west Victoria, as well as the globally significant ecosystems that support Koontapool”.

The statement said the declared area was made on the back of preliminary assessments rather than comprehensive environmental studies which was “concerning”.

“We believe that the environmental studies should not have been completed before the declaration of the area not at stage five as per the eight-stage process.”

It said the declaration should have been more comprehensive and the process of declaration should have deployed the services and involved the independent offshore regulator NOPSEMA (National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority).

Federal member for Wannon Dan Tehan said it was “beggars belief” Energy Minister Chris Bowen had not done the appropriate consultation with Gunditj Mirring.

“Given this failure to consult he should immediately rip up the declared zone and start the process again,” he said.”
The Standard

You can sign your name to a petition to the Parliament of Australia to stop all offshore wind turbine proposals and construction here (closes 20 May 2024)
https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN6098/sign

The Electric Bus Debacle in Antelope Valley: A Case Study in Premature Policy Implementation

The sudden suspension of electric battery bus services in Antelope Valley two weeks ago has unveiled significant challenges and pitfalls associated with the rush towards electrification of public transit systems, without adequately addressing reliability and infrastructure issues.

From Watts Up With That?

The sudden suspension of electric battery bus services in Antelope Valley two weeks ago has unveiled significant challenges and pitfalls associated with the rush towards electrification of public transit systems, without adequately addressing reliability and infrastructure issues.

This event has left hundreds of commuters stranded, highlighting the essential gaps in planning and risk management that are too often overlooked in the fervor to adopt green technologies.

The Incident
On a seemingly ordinary Tuesday, the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (AVTA) halted all operations involving their fleet of MCI D45 battery-electric commuter coaches. This decision, made “out of an abundance of caution and for reasons outside of AVTA’s control,” abruptly affected the daily routines of countless individuals who rely on these buses for work, school, and other critical appointments. The suspension, importantly, did not impact AVTA’s local service nor their use of BYD zero-emission battery electric buses, suggesting a specific issue with the MCI D45 models.

At least four critical commuter lines were affected by the suspension, including services to downtown Los Angeles, Century City, the San Fernando Valley and the TRANSporter service to Newhall. 

The suspension does not affect AVTA’s local service or the agency’s use of any BYD zero-emission battery electric buses, transport officials said. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/electric-battery-commuter-bus-services-abruptly-suspended-in-antelope-valley/ar-BB1lluZb

Commuter Chaos and Communication Breakdown
The impact on the community was immediate and severe. Many commuters were left in the lurch, with some only becoming aware of the suspension when handed a flyer while boarding a bus. This last-minute notification is a glaring testament to the lack of effective communication strategies in critical transit service changes. Furthermore, alternative transport options were not seamlessly integrated. Metrolink trains, suggested as an alternative, were reportedly unprepared to accept AVTA passes, leading to confusion and additional expenses for the riders, with one individual’s commute cost tripling as a result of the disruption.

The Underlying Issues
While no official explanation was provided immediately, some speculation pointed towards safety concerns with the electric batteries, such as potential fire risks. This speculation, if true, touches upon a critical aspect of electric vehicle technology — battery safety and reliability. The rapid push for electrification of public transport solutions often glosses over these vital engineering challenges. It is imperative to ask if the technological zeal is overshadowing practical implementation strategies that ensure safety and reliability.

Economic Impact and Policy Shortcomings
The financial ramifications for everyday commuters like the bus rider who reported a threefold increase in daily commuting costs illustrate a broader issue of economic inequity introduced by technological transitions. The shift to electric buses is often touted as a necessary step towards combating climate change, yet the real-time execution of these policies must be scrutinized. Are we advancing towards a future of sustainability at the expense of present-day reliability and economic accessibility?

Moreover, the AVTA’s situation serves as a microcosm of a larger trend where policies and technologies are deployed under the banner of environmental conservation without thorough vetting for practical viability. This incident compels policymakers to reassess the balance between innovation and reliability, especially in essential services like public transportation.

Conclusion
The suspension of the electric bus services in Antelope Valley should act as a wake-up call for transit authorities and policymakers alike. It underscores the necessity of adopting a measured, data-driven approach when integrating new technologies into critical public services. Technology transitions must not compromise on safety, reliability, or economic feasibility. As this case vividly demonstrates, the leap towards futuristic solutions requires not just technological readiness but a robust framework for risk assessment, crisis management, and public communication to truly benefit the communities it aims to serve.

This incident reveals the gaps between the idealistic pursuits of environmental policies and the pragmatic realities of their implementation. It serves as a crucial lesson in the importance of caution and thoroughness in the face of technological or ideological enthusiasm.

Video of news story here.

H/T j-boles

A Thing Where Every Part Of Your Life Just Confirms What It Is That You Want To Believe

Psychology of zealots, dogmatists and radicals in a nutshell

Illustrative image of sub conscious level

From NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

Psychology of zealots, dogmatists and radicals in a nutshell

Videos on near-death experiences (NDEs) are posted everywhere. Just how many are for real and how many are click-baiting, made-up stories is impossible to tell.

But I feel the following one is genuine, and offers wisdom for everyone on opposite sides of hot-button issues:

What the man says, especially at about the 4.00 mark, ought to be heeded by everyone.

At 4:38, he nails it when it comes to how zealots and fanatics think:

The outliers don’t matter at all. It’s just the narrative – everything that supports the narrative is the only thing I could see. So, it becomes a thing where every part of your life just confirms what it is that you want to believe. You don’t feel there’s anyway you could be wrong about it.”

We see this everywhere nowadays: emotionally charged fanatics let themselves get consumed by hatred and allowed their minds to get poisoned. It’s impossible to reason with them. All you can do is discreetly drop bits of enlightenment here and there, and then hope someday they will moderate. Anything else is just a waste of time.

And, in the heated debate over controversial issues, it’s up to you to decide whether or not you let others get under your skin, take control of you, and hijack your emotions. It’s your choice. We shouldn’t need a near-death experience to understand this.

In the context of the huge picture of eternity. some dickheads in this short little life of ours are not worth getting all wound up about. Serenity begins from within.

Airlines Launch Effort Backing Green Jet Fuel Tax Credit That Could Raise Food Prices For Americans

A coalition of major airlines has formed a group supporting a tax credit pushed by President Joe Biden that experts say could jack up food prices.

From The Daily Caller

ROBERT SCHMAD

CONTRIBUTOR

A coalition of major airlines has formed a group supporting a tax credit pushed by President Joe Biden that experts say could jack up food prices.

More than 40 companies, including Boeing, American Airlines, JetBlue and United as well as ethanol trade groups, are pushing the federal government to “expand” existing tax credits for “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) and to pass legislation to increase the fuel’s availability, Axios reported. Corn-based ethanol is a common component in SAF and experts previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation that increasing the demand for corn by incentivizing its use in jet fuel could indirectly raise food costs for Americans. (RELATED: Biden Admin Unveils Green Jet Fuel Subsidy Rules In Win For Big Corn)

The Biden administration is reportedly planning to disclose how it will measure eligibility for the SAF tax credit, per recent reports. A bipartisan group of senators, many of whom represent states that produce large amounts of corn, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in June 2023 urging her department to adopt the U.S. Department of Energy’s Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies (GREET) model for calculating SAF tax credits.

GREET, if adopted, would make it easier for ethanol to be deemed sufficiently eco-friendly to qualify for SAF tax credits.

The SAF credit, created by Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, provides airliners with a tax credit worth $1.25 for each gallon of SAF contained within a qualifying mixture of jet fuel, according to the Internal Revenue Service. In order to qualify for the credit, the SAF must have a minimum reduction of “50% in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions,” with additional credit available for fuels offering greater reductions.

If demand for ethanol increases as a result of the fuel qualifying for tax incentives, Americans could see their grocery bills go up, according to experts.

Increased ethanol in jet fuel will produce costs “borne by consumers, taxpayers and the environment,” Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law at the University of Minnesota C. Ford Runge, previously told the DCNF.

Ethanol production increases the cost of food by making corn more expensive and by increasing the cost of feed used to produce meat, dairy and eggs, according to an Iowa State University policy brief.

Airlines are pushing to expand the credits at a time when average Americans are struggling to keep up with surging food prices. Food spending as a proportion of income in the U.S. reached its highest point since 1991 in 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Runge said that ethanol SAF tax credits are “not going to do much for global warming, but it will do quite a lot to benefit the renewable fuel industry and it will also indirectly benefit corn prices.”

Corn plants struggle to survive in drought-stricken farm fields in Ferdinand, Indiana (REUTERS/ John Sommers II)

It’s also unclear if SAFs will have any sizable impact on carbon emissions, Stanford University Civil and Environmental Engineering professor Mark Jacobson previously told the DCNF.

“SAFs are definitely not a climate solution at all, let alone an effective solution,” Jacobson said. “Ethanol production from corn increases CO2-equivalent emissions by 0 to 24% relative to gasoline and increases the price of corn (making it more expensive to eat).”

Increased corn cultivation spurned by increased ethanol production could also further deplete already strained aquifers in America’s heartland, according to a New York Times analysis.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s 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.