Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The big sunspot cluster that created the auroras a few weeks ago is very likely just over the horizon on the sun, and it appears to have spat out a doozy of an X2.9 flare to announce its return. While we can’t see the sunspot cluster itself yet, astronomers estimate that it is the same angry AR3664 set that has been circling across the far side of the sun for the last two weeks. This hyperactive region launched the X class flares that produced auroras on May 10th that were so powerful they lit up the skies far from the poles in Florida and Queensland.
The big sunspot cluster that created the auroras a few weeks ago is very likely just over the horizon on the sun, and it appears to have spat out a doozy of an X2.9 flare to announce its return. While we can’t see the sunspot cluster itself yet, astronomers estimate that it is the same angry AR3664 set that has been circling across the far side of the sun for the last two weeks. This hyperactive region launched the X class flares that produced auroras on May 10th that were so powerful they lit up the skies far from the poles in Florida and Queensland.
The global climate models agree that the effect of the solar-magnetic-wind and electric-field is exactly 0.0 degrees (per doubling of their NSF grants).
Some very active sunspots may last for months and each full rotation of the sun takes 27 days, so it may do a few laps and we may get more bites at this cherry. Or, if the sun is particularly grumpy, it may get more bites at us.
As the sun rotates we’ll see more of what is probably AR3664, though to confuse things, when it rolls over the horizon it will promptly get a new number-name. (It has and is now “AR13697”). It’s difficult to track what happens to every sunspot cluster as they travel across the far side of the sun, so all sunspots shifting into view are automatically given a new number. Though according to Daisy Dobrijevic at Space.com“scientists can track the sunspot’s progress across the sun’s far side by observing how it affects the sun’s vibrations or seismic echoes, using helioseismology data.” Sounds tricky. You’d think we’d have a camera on an asteroid on the far side recording the other half of sun, but we don’t. We spent $100 billion trying to blame a fertilizer for our storms, but a lot less than that trying to understand the sun.
As it happens, some officials at NASA even think the May aurora show was “one of the strongest auroras in 500 years”. They argue that some 7 different coronal mass ejections traveling at 3 million miles per hour, piled up together on the way and arrived all at once. In the last 70 years the other two big events were in 1958 and 2003. The Carrington event was so big it was seen in the Caribbean.
People who want to see an aurora may get lucky in the next two weeks if a flare is ejected in our direction
For those keen to see an aurora, look out for notices of a large X Class flares. Depending on how fast the ejections travel, the charged particles usually arrive here about two days later, but may come anytime from 15 hours to 4 or 5 days later. Once the particles hit the satellites at the Lagrange point the instruments give us about 15 to 45 minutes of warning. The Lagrange point is 1.5 million miles away from Earth towards the Sun in an area where gravitational and centripetal forces equal out, and it takes very little fuel for the satellites to maintain their position. It is the closest thing to a parking spot in space where our space-cars won’t roll away if we’re not looking.
For the record: Solar flares are graded B, C, M and X class, with X being the largest and each grade putting out ten times more energy than the grade before. Within each grade there are nine log divisions (Eg. M1, M2 etc.) There is no upper limit on X class flares and the one in 2003 overloaded the instruments (which max out at X17). It was later estimated to be X45, which sounds like it could have eaten the earth. The flares in May were smaller, like X4.5 and X5.8 but conglomerate.
X class flares can trigger planet wide radio blackouts and potentially widespread auroras.
UPDATE: Auroras are a fickle tool for measuring solar activity as only the ones aligned the opposite way to Earths magnetic field will generate the color-show in the sky.
“The degree of magnetic disturbance from a CME [coronal mass ejection] depends on the CME’s magnetic field and Earth’s. If the CME’s magnetic field is aligned with Earth’s, pointing from south to north the CME will pass on by with little effect. However, if the CME is aligned in the opposite direction it can cause Earth’s magnetic field to be reorganized, triggering large geomagnetic storms. “ — Space.com
The direction of the solar wind interplanetary magnetic field is called the clock angle, and to see an aurora we need the “Bz” to be negative. Since the sun flips its own magnetic field with each cycle, perhaps one orientation is more likely to generate auroras than the other? Some Russians claim that “odd numbered” solar cycles are more exciting for aurora watchers (and this is an odd numbered cycle — number 25). It maybe no accident that the last big auroras were 21 years ago at the peak of the last solar maximum with the solar north pointed in the same direction as it is now. So get your fill now of auroras if you can. It may be 22 years between drinks, so to speak.
UPDATE #2: Sorry — thinking about it, the sun flips magnetic poles at solar maxima (ie. soon) not at solar minima but we label the “cycles” from solar minima to minima. Hence each 11 year Schwabe cycle will be half North-South, then the sun will flip to South-North for the second half. So it doesn’t necessarily follow that odd or even solar cycles will be better or worse for auroras. There is probably a 22 year pattern for auroras but it will be split across Schwabe cycles.
According to Renew Economy, Retirement funds are investing $5 into fossil fuel for every $1 invested in renewables. My question – why are they wasting $1 in $5 $1 in $6?
According to Renew Economy, Retirement funds are investing $5 into fossil fuel for every $1 invested in renewables. My question – why are they wasting $1 in $5 $1 in $6?
Super funds back fossil “climate wreckers” over clean energy
For every dollar invested in clean energy companies, superannuation funds have five dollars invested in the expansion of fossil fuels, an index has found.
Australia’s top 30 super funds have more than $39 billion invested in the global expansion of gas, coal and oil, according to a report released on Tuesday by shareholder organisation Market Forces.
Retirement savings allocated across the Climate Wreckers Index – a group of 190 coal, oil and gas companies – have more than doubled in the two years to December 2023 in the largest or default investment options, based on the latest available disclosures.
Simultaneously, the amount allocated to listed clean energy companies has declined by half a billion dollars to a mere $7.7 billion despite the funds’ climate pledges.
It’s becoming painfully obvious by now that renewable energy is a bust. The skyrocketing energy demands of the AI age have likely smashed every green energy transition model which assumed energy efficiency measures would mitigate growth in demand.
Maybe I’m being a bit harsh with the retirement funds, they seem to be heading the right direction, gradually reducing their exposure to high risk green investments. Perhaps the slow drawdown is strategic, perhaps they are divesting green investments slowly to preserve member policy value, to avoid spooking the market with big selloffs. Or maybe they are selling simply because their green investments are failing to perform.
Correction (EW): h/t PariahDog – $1 in $6, not $1 in $5.
It is the beginning of my third week in Seattle, and I still haven’t swum in Green Lake. There is a sign that says, ‘Early Season at Madrona and East Green Lake begins Memorial Day weekend’.
It is the beginning of my third week in Seattle, and I still haven’t swum in Green Lake. There is a sign that says, ‘Early Season at Madrona and East Green Lake begins Memorial Day weekend’.
So, I was hoping it would be warm enough to go swimming Monday/Memorial Day, but with the surface water temperature just 15.6°C/60°F – and after some discussion with the lifeguard who was on duty. I declined.
The lifeguard explained that there was no issue with water quality despite all the duck poop, but that my body may be shocked by the cold. I am unaccustomed to it – swimming at 60°F.
Noone else was swimming – not a single local. Rather many people were walking, running, skating, biking around the perimeter.
My daughter tells me that there are indigenous American peoples who following tradition (pre-European settlement) would dunk their newborn babies in cold water every day for the first year of the baby’s life. So, the child becomes accustomed and resistant to cold. Perhaps also to hard things – and the mother as well, who would wade out often into icy cold water.
I am a fan of Wim Hof who teaches the benefits of cold-water exposure for building resistance and immunity, both physically and psychologically within our bodies – though so far, I have only done his breath work. I have never tried an ice bath – not yet.
That noone was swimming in Green Lake this Memorial Day would suggest that the population of Seattle has become somewhat resistant not to cold, but to the idea of being exposed to the benefits of cold – perhaps even hard things.
Another possible explanation is that it was unseasonally cold – never mind the claims that it is getting warmer and warmer, year on year because of all the carbon dioxides.
Given all the measuring you might assume it would be easy to know how cold it is now at Green Lake (Seattle) relative to how cold it was back in 1928 when the bathhouse was built, and everyone was swimming on Memorial Day. You might think, of course we know. We know the average global temperature to some fraction of a degree – if you believe the propaganda.
I’ve been reading ‘Our Polyvagal World’ by Stephen & Seth Porges – explaining why it is safer to believe. To believe the propaganda, I mean. At least for the individual.
It should be easy to know how air and water temperatures have changed at Green Lake over the last few decades. But with all the equipment changes, and all the adjusting of the temperature measurements here and in Australia, I can reliably inform you that no one really knows. Not for Green Lake or even equivalent bodies of water in Australia, not even for air temperatures.
More importantly perhaps, no one cares. It is actually dangerous for the individual to care about such things in a world where temperature and its year-on-year increase has become so politically important.
Very few ask the hard questions anymore – because it is not safe.
Almost everyone wants to believe together that somehow it is hotter, and if not hotter, then maybe colder. That the climate has become catastrophic.
Of course, those of you who have been following my work for some years know the effort that I have put into attempting some integrity in temperature measuring.
It is exactly ten years ago now, that I was working really hard and being very transparent with my numbers, showing that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology produces fraudulent remodelled temperature series that are then promoted as historically accurate records of our temperature history in accordance with the theory of catastrophic human-caused global warming.
Gerard Henderson from The Sydney Institute was kind enough to give me a platform to explain this, though he asked I not use the word fraudulent.
What I said that evening on 25th June 2014 – ten years and one month ago – is still relevant so relevant, and the notes are still available at my website, CLICK HERE. Of course, I have expanded on this, demonstrated again and again not only problems with the remodelling but also, subsequently, problems with how the actual temperatures have been recorded beginning with the transition to platinum resistance probes in November 1996. I’ve explained how the Bureau needs to make the parallel data public so we can compare measurements today from platinum resistant probe with the measurements decades ago taken with mercury thermometers, CLICK HERE.
But who really cares – and how are they helping?
If they really cared, they wouldn’t have let Greg Hunt ‘kill’ the idea of a review into the Bureau. The article published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is quite blasé about it all – there is mention of ‘following reports in The Australian newspaper’, CLICK HERE.
Each one of those articles in The Australian newspaper followed an extraordinary effort on my part, with checking done by Ken Stewart, to convert daily to monthly to annual values for whichever temperature series journalist Graham Lloyd requested. Since then, over the last ten year a lot more of the data has subsequently become available, including monthly values for the remodelled ACORN-SAT series. And so many numbers for other temperature series were crunched, with corresponding articles never written.
I was converting daily to monthly to annual and then charting the difference to shown the extent of the deceit. I was crunching numbers no one had crunched before so the comparisons between the adjusted and the raw for the individual weather stations could be seen – along with the step changes. Then my numbers were sent by Lloyd to the Bureau, for more checking. It was never reported back to Lloyd that I got anything wrong. Just that there was always good reason to remodel the original temperatures – to change what had been measured at the official recording stations by accredited officers decades ago.
A couple of Green Lake ducks.
*To be sure to get my next Mailchimp/Keeping You in the Loop email, you can subscribe at this website, CLICK HERE.
Climate change causing both wetter and drier summers? UK’s Met Office warned government that the 2024 summer could see 50 days of rain!In the summers of 2018 and 2022, for example, Europe was hit by drought, and government-paid experts and media blamed man-made climate change. Many claimed that drought would be the future for British and European summers.
As global temperatures rise, there is a risk drought will become more frequent in the UK. Data available here.
Winters across the UK are projected to get wetter, while summers are expected to become drier. However, it is the distribution of this rainfall that will determine future UK drought risk.
Today: prepare for “at least” 50 days of summer rain!
Ironically, it has just been reported by news site LBC here that the Met Office now has warned the government “to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months, leading to fears over further flooding in the UK and dashing any hopes of a warm British summer.”
All the talk of climate-change induced droughts has shifted to drenched summers!
“Last summer saw 40 days of rain, but the Met Office expects this summer to be even worse, jeopardising popular summer events such as Wimbledon, Trooping of the Colour, Royal Ascot and many festivals including Glastonbury,” LBC adds.
More rain and more drought in the summer
The reason for all the expected rain, according to the LBC site: global warming.
“Climate change is largely to blame for the UK’s wetter weather. As the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture – around 7% for each degree.”
Ironically, the wettest ever summer ever in the UK occurred in 1912, which saw rainfall on more than 55 days. At the time, the UK was about a degree Celsius cooler and so the atmosphere was capable of holding 7% less water. Why would it rain more back then?
Met Office concedes forecasts are not possible
It’s becoming glaringly clear that climate science is indeed full of contradictions and theoretical errors. Climatic statements can’t be taken seriously anymore.
Hours later, the Met Office tried to backpedal, telling tyla.com here that it “has had to come forward to shut down reports that the UK is reportedly set for 50 days of rain this summer” and: “It is not possible to forecast a specific number of days of rain for the whole of summer.”
“When looking at forecasts beyond five days into the future, the chaotic nature of the atmosphere starts to come into play – small events currently over the Atlantic can have potentially significant impacts on our weather in the UK in several days’ or weeks’ time,” the Met Office told Tyla.
A few weeks ago, an article by Professor Ulf Büntgen titled The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism created a significant stir when it was published in Nature’s npj Climate Action. Büntgen’s commentary was lauded in climate-skeptic circles for calling out the growing trend of scientists blurring the lines between objective research and ideological activism. His argument was clear: scholars should not have a priori interests in their study outcomes, and activists should not masquerade as scientists.
A few weeks ago, an article by Professor Ulf Büntgen titled The Importance of Distinguishing Climate Science from Climate Activism created a significant stir when it was published in Nature’snpj Climate Action. Büntgen’s commentary was lauded in climate-skeptic circles for calling out the growing trend of scientists blurring the lines between objective research and ideological activism. His argument was clear: scholars should not have a priori interests in their study outcomes, and activists should not masquerade as scientists.
Büntgen’s call for a clear separation between climate science and activism was welcomed as a refreshing deviation from the usual climate alarmism. As Judith Curry tweeted,
Kudos to Nature for publishing this
“I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars shouldn’t have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists”
Büntgen’s stance was a significant departure from the ideologically motivated narratives that often dominate climate science discourse.
This was lauded in the climate skeptosphere, climate realist circles, or whatever we are calling ourselves these days, as a welcome change from the constant barrage of ideologically motivated journal publishing on climate topics.
As with Patrick Brown, people appreciated that sane and ethical people were willing to put their heads up in opposition to the long march of climate alarmism.
However, barely ten days after Büntgen’s commentary, Nature rushed out an article titled 2023 Summer Warmth Unparalleled Over the Past 2,000 Years, co-authored by Jan Esper, Max Torbenson, and ironically, I happened to notice, Ulf Büntgen himself. This paper claimed that the summer of 2023 was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in over two millennia, exceeding the 95% confidence range of natural climate variability by more than half a degree Celsius. The article emphasized the urgency of implementing international agreements to reduce carbon emissions, framing recent temperature extremes as clear evidence of anthropogenic climate change exacerbated by an El Niño event.
This Nature piece is part of a long tradition in paleoclimatology that uses tree rings as pre-instrumental temperature proxies and then grafts instrumental records onto these proxies to establish a narrative of unprecedented modern warming. This approach, popularized by Michael Mann’s infamous “hockey stick” graph, has been criticized for its methodological flaws and for downplaying natural climate variability, such as the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period.
The Hypocrisy Unveiled
Büntgen’s involvement in the Nature article raises glaring questions about his commitment to the principles he espoused in his earlier commentary. How can one reconcile his call for separating science and activism with his participation in a study that clearly advocates for immediate policy action based on its findings?
In his Nature commentary, Büntgen warned against the dangers of scientists becoming activists, stating, “I am concerned by climate scientists becoming climate activists, because scholars should not have a priori interests in the outcome of their studies. Likewise, I am worried about activists who pretend to be scientists, as this can be a misleading form of instrumentalization”. Yet, the abstract of the Nature article he co-authored concludes with a call to action for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, aligning more with advocacy than with the dispassionate pursuit of scientific knowledge.
Although 2023 is consistent with a greenhouse gases-induced warming trend7 that is amplified by an unfolding El Niño event8, this extreme emphasizes the urgency to implement international agreements for carbon emission reduction.
Tree Rings and Temperature Proxies: A Dubious Foundation
The reliance on tree rings as temperature proxies is fraught with uncertainty. Tree ring data, which may at times be useful for understanding certain climatic trends, are influenced by multiple factors, including precipitation, CO2 levels, and soil conditions. As Anthony Watts pointed out in his detailed critique in Human Events, these proxies are often used selectively to support predetermined conclusions about climate trends. The Roman Warm Period (1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950–1250 AD) are well-documented in historical and archaeological records, yet they are conspicuously absent in the reconstructions presented in such studies.
The study, Esper, J. et al. Nature, 2023, is using an old statistical trick pioneered by Michael Mann, PhD. in his hockey stick graph controversy, where estimated temperatures from tree rings and other proxies (used because no thermometer readings exist prior to about 1850) far into the past are grafted onto more reliable temperatures measured in the present and presented as one unified dataset, when in fact they are different. … For example, an article about the study in the BBC showed this graph, which is highly reminiscent of Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph.
…
…
That graph is highly misleading, if not flat-out fabrication. It suffers from the same sort of issues in Mann’s original “hockey stick” graph such as suppressed climate variability over the past 2000 years. We know from other studies that the Roman Warm Period (from 1–250 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to c. 1250) existed, but they have been erased from the graph presented to the public.
The value of tree rings in paleoclimatology is highly debatable. While they can provide some insights into past climate conditions, their interpretation is complex and often contentious. The methodological issues associated with tree rings, including their susceptibility to various environmental factors, make them less reliable as standalone indicators of historical climate variability.
Anthony also notes:
The lead author, Jan Esper, confirms by quotes given to the BBC, that he is in fact using this study as a vehicle to elicit change.
The authors say the key conclusion from their work is the need for rapid reductions in emissions of planet-warming gases. “The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be and the more difficult it will be to mitigate or even stop that process and reverse it,” said lead author, Prof Jan Esper from Johannes Gutenberg University, in Germany.
“That is just so obvious,” he said. “We should do as much as possible, as soon as possible.”
This admission makes the study more about climate advocacy than science, and the media fell for it.
Büntgen’s dual role as a critic of activism in science and a co-author of an advocacy-driven study highlights a troubling trend in climate research. This blending of science and advocacy undermines public trust in scientific institutions. When scientists take on activist roles, they risk compromising the perceived objectivity of their work. This is particularly problematic in climate science, where policy decisions with far-reaching economic and social consequences are often based on ideologically captured academic scientific recommendations.
Questioning Büntgen’s Motives
Büntgen’s contradictory actions suggest a deeper issue. Is his sudden pivot to advocacy a genuine shift in understanding, or is it driven by other motivations? The timing of his involvement in the Nature article, so soon after his call for separating science from activism, is suspicious. It raises the possibility that Büntgen might be playing both sides of the fence—garnering credibility among skeptics with his initial commentary, while aligning with the mainstream climate narrative to maintain academic standing and funding.
Such duplicity is not uncommon in academia, where the pressure to secure grants and publish in high-impact journals can lead researchers to align their findings with prevailing narratives. Büntgen’s case is a stark reminder of the complexities and potential conflicts of interest in climate science.
The Ideological Capture of Academia
The current state of climate science reflects a broader societal issue where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the ideological capture of academia. Research is often driven by political and ideological motivations rather than an unbiased pursuit of knowledge. This ideological capture can lead to the selective use of data and the promotion of specific narratives that support policy goals, rather than providing a balanced view of the available evidence.
This ideological capture of academia has fueled the narrative of an urgent need to address climate change. This urgency is more about political agendas than scientific necessity. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), for instance, has been criticized for overstating the certainty of anthropogenic warming relative to natural climate variability. The IPCC’s summaries for policymakers often present a simplified and sometimes alarmist view of climate science, which can distort public perception and policy debates. This tendency to “sell” climate science as a crisis requiring immediate and drastic action can lead to the implementation of policies that are not justified by the underlying science.
A Call for Intellectual Independence
To address these issues, it is crucial to foster a culture of critical scrutiny and intellectual independence within the scientific community. Scientists should be encouraged to question dominant paradigms and explore alternative hypotheses without fear of professional ostracization. The peer review process must be transparent and robust enough to withstand political and ideological pressures.
Additionally, the media, policymakers, and the public need to be educated about the complexities of climate science. Understanding that scientific knowledge evolves and that uncertainty is a natural part of scientific inquiry can help temper the often sensationalist portrayal of climate issues in the media.
Conclusion
Büntgen’s initial call for distinguishing between climate science and activism was both timely and necessary. However, his involvement in the Nature article underscores the difficulty of maintaining such a distinction in practice. The challenge lies not only in separating science from activism but also in ensuring that “climate science” as it’s come to be known, remains a rigorous, objective discipline that can inform effective and rational policymaking. Only through a recommitment to the principles of scientific inquiry and a vigilant defense against ideological influences can climate science ever hope to provide the guidance needed for any type of policy decisions.
In summary, the current state of climate science is a reflection of broader societal trends where the predetermined narrative of an urgent need to address climate change has led to the conflation of science and activism. While activism plays a crucial role in raising awareness and driving action, it is essential that scientific research remains an unbiased and objective pursuit. Only then can we hope to develop policies that are both effective and based on a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of our climate system.
The Final Irony
Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that Büntgen himself exemplifies the very issue he critiques. By participating in an advocacy-driven study, he undermines his own argument for the separation of science and activism. This hypocrisy not only tarnishes his credibility but also highlights the broader problem of ideological influence in climate science. If we are to trust science, we must first ensure that it remains free from the taint of activism. Only then can we have confidence in the policies derived from it.
Climate change, as presented by mainstream narratives, is fraught with uncertainties and driven by ideological motivations rather than urgent, unbiased scientific inquiry. Policies derived from such skewed science are more likely to cause harm than benefit. By exposing the hypocrisy of figures like Büntgen, we can begin to reclaim a more balanced and objective approach to understanding and addressing actual environmental issues.
Who gets to make the rules in American government? One of the most controversial and important cases before the Supreme Court concerns that crucial question
Who gets to make the rules in American government? One of the most controversial and important cases before the Supreme Court concerns that crucial question.
Congress makes the rules for the federal government in the form of laws. But federal agencies must enforce the law and often must make rules of their own – regulations – to do so. And courts then sometimes must resolve disputes about whether an agency’s regulations are well-grounded in the statutes that Congress produces.
About 40 years ago, the Supreme Court tried to make things less confusing by setting some ground rules about who gets to make the rules. The Supreme Court decided to create a rule about rules: It said that if an agency’s rule produced a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute passed by Congress, then courts should defer to the agency. In other words: If an agency’s rule is challenged in court, then a court decides whether the agency’s rule makes for a reasonable interpretation of the statute. If the court decides that the agency’s rule is reasonable, then the agency’s rule – even when challenged in court – always wins.
Perhaps the architects of the Chevronprinciple thought this was a good way to reduce conflict between various parts of the government. Unfortunately, that solution created a new problem: an avalanche of new federal rulemaking that is increasingly difficult for citizens to challenge in court.
Critics of the Chevron principle – including several justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court – have noted that it appears to have a strange and disturbing consequence: Namely, in some circumstances it is agencies, not courts, that have the final word when interpreting the law.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondocase, a lawsuit that unavoidably put the Chevron principle in the spotlight. The Loper Bright parties challenged a rule that requires professional fishermen to pay the salaries of government observers who are required to tag along aboard commercial fishing boats. It is not hard to see why the lawsuit was brought: Imagine if, one day, some federal bureaucrat told you that, from now on, not only is there going to be a new person at your workplace who will monitor you to ensure that you’re doing your job correctly, but you’re also going to have to pay his salary! (CEI submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in this case.)
There is no statute that expressly requires fishermen to pay for their own federal monitors. Nonetheless, the agency’s regulation (that is supposed to be based on the statute) requires this payment. Whatever is going on here, it looks like the agency isn’t interpreting anything; instead, it looks like the agency is serving as an additional legislature. In short, this case is about two questions: first, whether the regulation genuinely springs from the statute and, second, whether Chevron prevents the court from looking at the first question.
Those who observed the oral argument for Loper Bright a few months ago have good reason to believe that Chevron is in the court’s crosshairs. At the argument, Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed that Chevron “ushers in shocks to the system every four or eight years when a new administration comes in,” bringing “massive change” to regulations regularly. That’s because there are plenty of agencies that take their cues from whoever is president and implement policies that they believe the boss will like.
Justice Neil Gorsuch then noted that Chevron also allows agencies to inject institutional self-interest into their own regulations. For instance, when agencies must deal with veterans’ benefits or Social Security claimants, Chevron encourages agencies to make rules that benefit those agencies but operate to the detriment of “the little guy” – because there is a danger that the agency will interpret the statute in a way that makes it as easy as possible to administer.
At the end of the oral argument, one of the lawyers before the court suggested that the Chevron rule could not be limited or modified; rather, he said, the court should “recognize that the fundamental problem is Chevron itself.” It’s a good bet that in the coming weeks the majority of justices will agree – and decide that it’s time once again to let the courts exercise their traditional function of interpreting the law.
This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Editor’s Note: Should Chevron be struck down, the implications for the EPA, DOE, a host of other agencies, and the climate agenda of the Biden administration will be enormous. Hundreds if not thousands of regulations and programs will be in jeopardy.
The former head of Britain’s farming union yesterday spoke out against large-scale solar farms, declaring ‘there’s a huge amount not to like’.
But Minette Batters warned they will continue to be built while her members faced uncertainty about the future of dairy and arable farming – and while wealthy investors are free to buy up large chunks of the countryside.
The former head of Britain’s farming union yesterday spoke out against large-scale solar farms, declaring ‘there’s a huge amount not to like’.
But Minette Batters warned they will continue to be built while her members faced uncertainty about the future of dairy and arable farming – and while wealthy investors are free to buy up large chunks of the countryside.
Ms Batters, the ex-president of the National Farmers’ Union, also highlighted ‘horrific examples’ where tenant farmers are being booted off land for huge solar schemes so the landowner can make more money.
She said such changes of land use will continue while investors including overseas financiers and private equity firms are able to buy up huge chunks of the rural landscape unchecked, warning: ‘The country is up for sale’.
Ms Batters called for the next government to prioritise a new land strategy, so protections are given to traditional farming and its economic value is properly-acknowledged.
Ms Batters warned that solar farms will continue to be built while her members faced uncertainty about the future of dairy and arable farming (pictured: A proposed 1,400-acre site for a solar farm in Chickerell, Dorset)
She added: ‘We are a country up for sale. We are selling off land to people who don’t pay their taxes here. It does have to change.’
She said she could understand opposition to solar farms – but also had sympathy for farmers cashing in on such projects because they provide a guaranteed, index-linked income for decades.
‘You can understand at the moment, from a farmer’s perspective… £1,200 a hectare (per year), index-linked, locked in for 20 years, what’s not to like?’ she said.
‘For everybody else, there’s a huge amount not to like. This is the trouble with a solar farm. There will be one beneficiary.’
But Ms Batters said that in some cases, farmers themselves have been forced to leave their farms to make way for solar farms if they are tenants of larger landowners.
She said: ‘We are seeing horrific examples of some land owners taking land back from tenants to put into solar.’
Ms Batters criticised how land ownership by wealthy investors including private equity firms is being allowed to proliferate – and called for action.
Citing the debt-fuelled private equity takeover of supermarket chain Morrisons, which the Daily Mail campaigned against, she said: ‘We saw what happened with Morrisons. We might not have a British-owned supermarket in 10 years.
‘Now, private equity has moved into land. The country is up for sale.
‘I remember having a conversation with (former Chancellor) Kwasi Kwarteng. He said, you can’t be a free market one day and not the next.
‘We are a country up for sale. We are selling off land to people who don’t pay their taxes here. It does have to change.’
Ms Batters called for the next government to prioritise a new land strategy, so protections are given to traditional farming and its economic value is properly-acknowledged.
The mainstream media is hyping the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) annual hurricane Season forecast released on May 23rd, that projects significantly above normal hurricane season is to be expected in the Atlantic. For example, these headlines: NBC News, NOAA issues highest-ever early forecast for the coming hurricane season; the New York Times, 2024 Hurricane Season Is Expected to Be Abnormally Busy, NOAA Predicts; and Huffington Post, NOAA Issues Its Most Aggressive Storm Forecast Yet Ahead Of Hurricane Season.
NOAA National Weather Service forecasters at the Climate Prediction Center predict above-normal hurricane activity in the Atlantic basin this year. NOAA’s outlook for the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, which spans from June 1 to November 30, predicts an 85% chance of an above-normal season, a 10% chance of a near-normal season and a 5% chance of a below-normal season.
NOAA is forecasting a range of 17 to 25 total named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher). Of those, 8 to 13 are forecast to become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 4 to 7 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). Forecasters have a 70% confidence in these ranges.
Infographic: NOAA National Hurricane Center
If that forecast comes true it would in fact be a very busy season with the potential for devastating storms along the United States and Caribbean coastlines.
Many reports suggest a busier than normal season because ocean heat content in the main region of the Atlantic is running ahead of schedule for this time of year. Hurricanes thrive on heat from the ocean, so forecasters are expecting quick development.
The current ocean heat content in the Atlantic Main Development Region for hurricanes is currently running about 2.5 months ahead of schedule according to this analysis by Brian McNoldy at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School, seen in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Ocean Heat content in 2024 as of May 24th compared to the 2013-2023 average.
NOAA latches onto this heated development adding in their press release:
As one of the strongest El Ninos ever observed nears its end, NOAA scientists predict a quick transition to La Nina conditions, which are conducive to Atlantic hurricane activity because La Nina tends to lessen wind shear in the tropics. At the same time, abundant oceanic heat content in the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea creates more energy to fuel storm development.
But despite the predictions of a fast and furious potential for more hurricanes this year Mother Nature isn’t cooperating, so far. Philip Klotzbach, Ph.D., a hurricane specialist at the University of Colorado notes that expected development has stalled:
The Northern Hemisphere has yet to have its first named storm (e.g., tropical storm or hurricane) in 2024. This is the first time since 1983 that the Northern Hemisphere has gone this late in the calendar year without a named storm.
The early forecasts and media coverage have a feeling of 2022, “deja vu all over again.” Climate Realism brought attention to the early overhyped claims and the failures of the media in covering the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season here,here, and here. When it was all over, we reported Despite Predictions, 2022 Atlantic Hurricane Season Fizzles Out Below ‘Normal’. After nearly 4 decades of climate agenda driven claims of worsening global climate impacts from hurricanes, NOAA’s measured worldwide hurricane season data for all year 2022 tropical storms showed that global wide storms were at their lowest strength levels in the last 42 years as seen in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2: The year 2022 global wide ACE data outcome is about 29% lower than the average over the 30 year-long (1991 through 2020) climatology period tracked by Colorado State University’s Tropical Meteorology Project database.
To say that the predictions and media coverage of the 2022 hurricane season was an epic failure is an understatement.
Yet, here we are, two years later with the same sort of predictions and media hype unfolding again. In 2022, NOAA said this:
The increased activity anticipated this hurricane season is attributed to several climate factors, including the ongoing La Niña that is likely to persist throughout the hurricane season, warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, weaker tropical Atlantic trade winds and an enhanced west African monsoon.
Sound familiar? Only time will tell, but given the poor track record of the past, there’s a good chance that NOAA and the media will have egg on its collective face again at the end of 2024. One thing we can say for certain when it comes to hurricanes, despite constant assertions that climate change is making them worse, data shows that there is no long-term trend of either increasing hurricane frequency or hurricanes becoming more powerful.
Environmental Justice (EJ) advocates like the PEAK coalition argue that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.” This post critiques a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report on “Information from Peak Demand Power Plants” that was prepared in response to a question about pollution from these facilities by some congressional representatives..
Environmental Justice (EJ) advocates like the PEAK coalition argue that “Fossil peaker plants in New York City are perhaps the most egregious energy-related example of what environmental injustice means today.” This post critiques a recent General Accounting Office (GAO) report on “Information from Peak Demand Power Plants” that was prepared in response to a question about pollution from these facilities by some congressional representatives..
The GAO website summary for the report explains why they did the study:
Environmental advocacy groups, and some congressional leaders have expressed concerns that peakers may be less efficient than non-peakers, meaning peakers may expend more energy that is not converted into electricity than other types of plants. Further, due to the nature of their operations, peakers may also negatively affect the air quality in communities around the plants, which may be historically disadvantaged or disproportionately low-income.
GAO was asked to examine pollution from peakers across the nation. This report provides information on the number and location of peakers in the U.S., their proximity to historically disadvantaged or disproportionately low-income communities, to what extent they emit pollutants and how these pollutants affect the health of people exposed, and alternatives for replacing them. To perform this work, GAO analyzed data from EPA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other sources, reviewed relevant literature, and interviewed federal officials and stakeholders from 19 state, industry, and nongovernmental organizations representing a diversity of perspectives about peakers.
I am unimpressed with this report. It is not clear to me whether the political implications of this topic or the naivete of the authors was the reason for the poor quality. Whatever the reason, the report confirmed the biased concerns of environmental advocacy groups without addressing the fundamental problematic issues associated with peaking power. It is especially galling that the report ignored air quality protections already in place.
This topic is a particular concern of mine because issues associated with peaking power plants have been one of my responsibilities since 2000. Initially, my concerns were associated with developing an emissions tracking system to ensure compliance with air quality requirements for peaking plants. Later I participated in the regulatory process to develop regulations to reduce their emissions but also keep the lights on, keep the costs down, and achieve improved air quality. It took many years but New York State developed a rule that fulfilled those requirements. I doubt that I am the only one who participated in that process who was taken aback when environmental advocacy groups started campaigning against the power plants covered by the regulations put in place to address the peaking power plant pollution.
Peaking Power Problem
I think the GAO report missed the opportunity to highlight the challenges and implications of peak power demand and how it could and should be addressed. An Ozone Transport Commission presentation of issues associated with High Energy Demand Days (HEDD) from 2006 describes the tradeoffs. Air quality and energy planning both prioritize energy demand peaks because the highest electric demand and worst air quality tend to coincide. This is because the meteorological conditions that cause peak loads also exacerbate the air quality impacts of the increased emissions needed to match peak loads. Reliably meeting the peaks results in using the dirtiest and most expensive units. The key energy considerations slide describes the issues.
The GAO report overlooked this aspect of the peaking power plant issue. Instead, when they explained why this issue matters, they only talked about daily peaks. I think that devalues the criticality of the peak issue. The real problem is that peak loads occur when customers need power the most. If it is unavailable, then immediate acute safety and health problems occur. While the daily peak is a problem it is far less impactful than the annual peak load.
GAO Report
The GAO report determined how many peakers are in the country and where they are located. This discussion failed to discuss another impactful nuance. The GAO analysis determined the number of peaking power plants as a function of how much power plants ran in 2021:
For the purpose of our report, we generally define peakers as plants that use fossil fuels, including natural gas, coal, and oil; have a capacity factor (the percent of energy produced over a certain time frame, out of what could have been produced at continuous full power operation) of 15 percent or less; and have a nameplate capacity (the designed full-load sustained output of a facility) of greater than 10 megawatts (MW) of electricity.
This is a similar methodology to that used by Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers (PSE) for Healthy Energy in their report Opportunities for Replacing Peaker Plants with Energy Storage in New York State. There is an unrecognized shortcoming to the approach. The GAO report states that “Peakers are used to supplement other types of power plants, such as baseload plants, which run consistently throughout the day and night, and intermediate plants, which run mostly during the day and less at night”. There is a difference between power plants designed to meet peaking applications and many facilities that now operate as intermediate or peaking units. For example, around 1970 Consolidated Edison of New York needed peaking capacity within New York City that would only run infrequently but also needed to startup quickly. They responded by building a fleet of around 100 simple-cycle natural gas turbines that were the cheapest capacity available. Today many of the units that meet the GAO definition were originally designed as base-load units and cannot start up quickly. I used to work at the Oswego Harbor generating station that had two 850 MW oil-fired units and took over a day to startup. The units have met the capacity factor criteria for peaking units for years, but they were not designed to operate that way.
The GAO report includes a map of plant locations but there is no capability to identify the plants on the map. If you are interested in specific facilities, the EPA Power Plants and Neighboring Communities website presents that information. The GAO summary lists 999 peaking power plants in the following table. The overall capacity factor of these plants is 6%.
The GAO analysis determined how closely peakers are located to historically disadvantaged and low- income communities. This analysis, the Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers, and even the draft New York regulations to address these facilities all use distance between the disadvantaged communities and the power plant as the metric of concern. The GAO claims that “For example, based on our model and main definition of a peaker, a community that is 71 percent historically disadvantaged is expected to be 9 percent closer to the nearest peaker than the average community, which is 40 percent historically disadvantaged.”
I do not think this is an unexpected result, but I also think it is meaningless. The air quality impacts of any facility do not depend entirely upon distance between the source and a receptor location. The stack characteristics (gas temperature, height of the stack, and stack exit dimensions) as week as meteorological conditions (wind direction, wind speed, and atmospheric stability) all affect air quality impacts. The Con Ed turbines had exit ducts that released the pollutants that were less than 100 feet and the location of maximum downwind impact was relatively close. On the other hand, the Oswego plant had 700’ stacks and the location of maximum downwind impact was quite a way from the plant.
The GAO report addressed the impact of emissions and the resulting health impacts: “When operating, peakers emit similar types of pollutants to other power plants that also use fossil fuels, and these pollutants are associated with various negative health effects, according to existing literature.” The impacts section notes:
Compared to non-peakers, peakers emitted more pollutants—such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide—per unit of electricity generated, but fewer total annual pollutants in 2021, according to our analysis of EPA data (see table 2). In other words, peakers emit less in total because there are fewer peakers and they operate less frequently overall than non-peakers. However, when they do operate, they emit more pollution per unit of electricity produced. For example, the median sulfur dioxide emission rate for natural gas fueled peakers was 1.6 times more per unit of electricity generated than the median emission rate for non-peakers.
This language parrots the talking points of EJ advocates but is much ado about nothing. It is obvious that fewer peakers that run less would have lower emissions than more numerous non-peakers that run more. Advocates harp on the fact that emission rates are higher for peakers than non-peakers. Highlighting the finding that “natural gas fueled peakers was 1.6 times more per unit of electricity generated than the median emission rate for non-peakers” is a naïve point because 0.008 versus 0.005 lb SO2 per MWhr is negligible for air quality impacts. Moreover, I think there is an error in the methodology because the sulfur content in fuel determines the emissions not how it is burned, so there should be no difference in the rates.
Another issue I have with this analysis and other similar analyses is that they don’t recognize that the primary air quality issue with peaking power plants is ozone. These units operate when energy demand is highest in the summer and those periods are typically hazy, hot, and humid. Those conditions are conducive to the highest ozone levels (some of the haze) and there has been immense pressure to reduce their emissions to reduce ozone levels. Ozone is a secondary pollutant produced in a photo-chemical reaction from nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. The conversion to ozone takes time and means that by the time it occurs the emissions from a power plant in a disadvantaged community have moved downwind. For example, the location of highest downwind conditions for emissions from New York City is in Connecticut, far beyond neighboring disadvantaged communities. Moreover the reality is that nitrogen oxides scavenge ozone so that the peaking power plants actually reduce ozone concentrations close to the facility.
I have been involved with air quality issues since I started working in 1976. The fundamental presumption has always been that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is the health metric used to determine health impacts. EPA explains:
The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for six principal pollutants (“criteria” air pollutants) which can be harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.
As an air pollution meteorologist one of my jobs was to run air quality models to determine the air quality impacts of existing and proposed facilities. The primary consideration was whether the modeling proved that the projected impacts were less than the NAAQS. The basis of my work was that when I showed compliance with those standards, I proved that we were protecting the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Regulatory agencies are required to ensure that any facility that cannot show compliance with the NAAQS must to modify its permitted operations or it cannot be allowed to operate.
The GAO report does not mention the NAAQS protections. Instead, the analysts follow the lead of EJ activists and claim that there are health effects from peaking power plants. The health effects section states: “Multiple pollutants that are emitted from peakers and other plants are associated with various negative health effects for the people exposed, according to federal agency reports we reviewed”. What they reviewed were the EPA Integrated Science Assessments:
EPA’s Integrated Science Assessments integrate information on criteria pollutant exposures and health effects from controlled human exposure, epidemiologic, and toxicological studies to form conclusions about the causal nature of relationships between exposure and health effects. For more information, see the EPA Preamble for Integrated Science Assessments at Preamble To The Integrated Science Assessments (ISA) | ISA: Integrated Science Assessments | Environmental Assessment | US EPA (accessed 8/30/2023).
The presumption in the report is that any level of pollution is bad: “For instance, short-term exposure to sulfur dioxide—the indicator for sulfur oxides used in EPA’s assessments—can lead to negative respiratory effects, such as decreased lung function, cough, chest tightness, and throat irritation.” The GAO report summarizes health effects from short-term exposures. All this is nice but it ignores the NAAQS process to determine acceptable ambient air quality levels.
The EJ activists pushing the negative impacts of the peaking power plants presume that there are alternatives. The GAO report looked at some available alternatives that could potentially replace fossil-fueled peakers at the same high-level used throughout the analysis. The report claims that “alternatives such as battery storage systems could potentially replace fossil-fueled peakers, according to studies we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed”. The report lists battery storage, pumped-hydro storage, thermal energy storage, and notes that renewable energy systems (e.g., wind and solar) may be paired with energy storage. It claims that “adding roof-top solar and battery storage to houses could reduce the demand for peakers in adjacent areas.” It includes two other possibilities:
Transmission and distribution infrastructure improvements: Upgrades or expansions to increase the capacity of current infrastructure that transmits and distributes electricity. These upgrades or expansions may help enable existing underutilized plants to meet peak demand.
Efforts to decrease consumers’ use of power during peak times: Efforts to incentivize consumers to reduce or shift electricity use during times of peak use to off-peak times.
To its credit the report does address the “potential challenges of replacing peakers” including cost, reliability, and location. In my opinion, the responses downplayed those challenges.
The report notes that “some alternatives may have higher capital and operating costs compared to current fossil-fueled peakers”:
Replacing peakers, some of which have already paid off their capital costs, will likely lead to additional up-front or operating costs compared to keeping the existing peakers. Further, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that solar and wind plants had higher average construction costs compared to natural gas-fired plants in 2023.
It is remarkable that this Federal report documented that construction costs of solar and wind are greater than natural gas plants but there is a missing nuance. While I am not an economist, I still question what kind of business model could justify developing a new resource that will operate as a peaking facility running less than 15 percent of the time. Surely the facility will have to charge very high rates when it does operate.
Appropriately the report notes that “current alternatives may not be able to provide the same reliability of current fossil-fueled peakers”:
Similarly, some alternatives may create reliability challenges. For the grid to be reliable, the energy resources in an area need to be able to supply power to meet peak demand for as long as it lasts, according to U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) officials. Some battery storage systems provide up to 4 hours of output, but peak demand may be longer in some areas. In contrast, a fossil-fueled peaker is only limited by fuel availability—a natural gas-fueled peaker could keep operating so long as natural gas is available.
This is an important point universally ignored by the activists that want to shut down peaking power plants now. The other nuance is that the overly broad definition of a peaking power plant covers facilities that provide different services than just peaking support. The 1700 MW at Oswego Harbor are within ten miles of three nuclear units. Nuclear units are required to shutdown when the grid goes down and in the 2003 blackout Oswego Harbor came on line to replace those units until the grid stabilized.
The GAO report also noted that “alternatives may not be able to be installed because of space and location concerns”:
Some alternatives may also run into space constraints or location concerns. For example, a densely populated urban community likely would not have sufficient space for a large renewable energy system paired with battery storage to help meet peak electricity demand.
I agree with this point, but it could have been expanded. Location matters within the grid. The transmission system is designed based on the location of the generating resources. The requirement that energy must be available at the location of the New York City peaking power plants is not acknowledged by the EJ activists, but it is a critical reliability constraint.
Most disappointing to me is that the report does not acknowledge the following challenges to the end of the main report. I believe that at least a hint of the following information should have been right up front:
In general, recognizing these challenges, some officials with whom we spoke identified trends that may lead to the continued use of fossil-fueled peakers. According to DOE officials, some U.S. peakers may not be able to be replaced with existing alternatives within cost, reliability, and location constraints.
Combinations of electricity generation and storage technologies, transmission and distribution improvements, and efforts to decrease consumer’s use of power during peak times may be too costly for consumers in some areas to provide an adequate level of grid reliability. Further, officials at two utilities noted that due to increased use of intermittent renewable resources on the grid (e.g., wind and solar power), the continued use of peakers to meet electricity demand may be necessary to maintain grid reliability. For example, the availability of sunlight for a solar installation may not match with peak demand in the evening when the sun goes down. Therefore, additional supplemental energy resources would be needed to fill the gaps and meet demand.
It gets worse. Buried in the technical appendix the last sentence in the last paragraph before the end notes is the caveat that there is no basis for concern (my highlight):
Limitations. We took several steps to assess the validity and sensitivity of our models, but certain limitations remain. Importantly, our measure of distance does not include other aspects—such as stack height, wind speed, or wind direction— that play important roles in the dispersion of pollutants and potential populations exposure. In addition, although we include some variables to control for factors that could influence the findings, it is possible that other controls might be important and were not accounted for in our model. Inclusion of a state fixed- effect partially addresses this by controlling for factors that vary by state. Still, our findings of associations between distance to peakers and historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic communities does not imply any causal relationships.
Discussion
The GAO was asked to respond to a question about pollution from peaking power plants by some congressional representatives. The response is a disappointment. The report summary found that:
Historically disadvantaged racial or ethnic communities tend to be closer to peakers.
Fossil-fueled peakers are primarily fueled by natural gas and emit air pollutants associated with various negative health effects, including on respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems.
Alternatives are available that could potentially replace or provide similar services as peakers, but we identified challenges for their use related to costs, reliability, space, and location.
I do not dispute that disadvantaged racial or ethnic communities tend to be closer to peakers but the fact the “findings of associations between distance to peakers and historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic communities does not imply any causal relationships” indicates that the basis for the concerns is weak. If the GAO report had evaluated the status of the communities of concern relative to the NAAQS or at least mentioned that there are standards designed to protect those communities, it would have been obvious that this is a non-problem conjured up by activists.
The second finding is another lost opportunity to inject reality into the conversation. Obviously, fossil-fueled peakers emit air pollutants and they can be “associated with various negative health effects, including on respiratory, cardiovascular, and nervous systems.” The complete disregard of the NAAQS protections in place unnecessarily scares the residents in the communities of concern. In addition, regarding emissions in isolation, focusing only on the negatives and disregarding any benefits creates an unnecessarily pessimistic outlook, hinders growth, and could lead to unintended consequences.
The final summary point begrudgingly admits that there are “costs, reliability, space, and location challenges” for replacements to peaking power plants. The GAO report should have emphasized these challenges in my opinion. The reality is that in order to deal with peaking power plants and the net-zero ambitions we do not have the generating or transmission technologies needed.
I conclude that this analysis and the report were intended to confirm the biases of the congressional representatives that requested the report and the EJ activists who promote it. It is only possible through a complete reading of the entire report to discover contrary evidence eviscerating this as an issue. The bigger picture problem is the potential threat that political and activist pressure will force premature retirement of peaking power plants with a marked increase in potential reliability risks. A blackout will have real ramifications as opposed to the over-hyped risks claimed.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
It’s the turn of the Leftwing Broadcasting Company to make a fool of itself:
Forecasters are predicting a summer of persistent rain and wet weather for Brits, as global warming continues to result in more erratic conditions.
The Met Office has briefed the Government and transport chiefs to prepare for at least 50 days of rain in the next three months, leading to fears over further flooding in the UK and dashing any hopes of a warm British summer.
Last summer saw 40 days of rain, but the Met Office expects this summer to be even worse, jeopardising popular summer events such as Wimbledon, Trooping of the Colour, Royal Ascot and many festivals including Glastonbury.
To count as a rainy day, there must be a minimum of 2.5mm of rain in a 24 hour period.
The UK’s wettest ever summer in 1912 saw rainfall on more than 55 days.
THE CHANCES OF A WET OR DRY SUMMER ARE FAIRLY BALANCED!
No doubt whether it’s wet, dry or average, they’ll blame it on global warming.
Meanwhile the media continues to shed whatever credibility it has left by publicising these daft claims, without bothering to do any factchecking of their own.
You must be logged in to post a comment.