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.
“There are signs that we may be reaching peak madness as opposition to cowboy renewable-energy development grows in regional and rural Australia…. Anger about the rampant spread of solar, wind and transmission development proposals has galvanized communities into action.”
“There are signs that we may be reaching peak madness as opposition to cowboy renewable-energy development grows in regional and rural Australia…. Anger about the rampant spread of solar, wind and transmission development proposals has galvanized communities into action.”
“I’m dismayed by the indifference of Green activists to the fate of the Greater Glider and other native wildlife that is losing its natural habitat in the rush for renewables,” Nick Cater recently posted. He continued with the specifics:
The vast hectares of native forest being destroyed to install wind turbines along the Great Dividing range is well documented in environmental impact statements for projects like the Upper Burdekin (Gawara Baya) Wind Farm in Far North Queensland.
Here’s an extract from the approval for the project given by Tanya Plibersek in April:
“To avoid and mitigate harm to protected matters, the Approval Holder must not clear more than: “a) 605.3 ha of Sharman’s Rock Wallaby Habitat, “b) 581 ha of Greater Glider (northern) Habitat, including: “i) no more than 331 ha of Greater Glider (northern) Denning Habitat, and “ii) no more than 250 ha of Greater Glider (northern) Foraging Habitat, “c) 581 ha of Masked Owl (northern) Habitat, “d) 614 ha of Koala habitat, “e) 616 ha of Red Goshawk Habitat, including: “i) no more than 331 ha of Red Goshawk Breeding Habitat, and “ii) no more than 285 ha of Red Goshawk Foraging Habitat, “f) 614 ha of Grey-headed Flying-Fox Foraging Habitat, “g) 614 ha of Spectacled Flying-Fox Foraging Habitat “h) 546 ha of Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat Roosting Habitat, “i) 545 ha of Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Habitat, “j) 614 ha of White-throated Needletail Habitat, “k) 614 ha of Fork-tailed Swift Habitat, and “l) 0 ha of occupied Magnificent Brood Frog Habitat”
These are vulnerable and endangered native species. Should the developers be allowed to destroy a single hectare of their precious habitat?
Cater added in “Collateral Damage” at his Substack site, Reality Bites with the subtitle “Destroying Greater Glider habitat is ok if you’re trying to save the planet”
The greater glider is in pole position to win the Marsupial of the Year contest. Australia’s largest gliding possum has pushed the much-fancied koala into second place in the latest rankings. Fittingly, the winner of the battle between creatures struggling for survival will be announced next week on Channel Ten’s The Project, a show that has been hovering on the brink of extinction for some time.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has been drumming up support for the panda-eyed eucalypt munchers with their teddy bear ears. “If smooth gliding, extra fluffy fur and smelly conversations are your thing, vote for the Greater Glider!” It urges on its website. It claims the Greater Glider population has halved in the last 20 years because of bushfires and logging.
This makes it odd, to say the least, that ACF is not raising a stink about Lotus Creek, where 310 hectares of old-growth forest are about to be bulldozed to make room for wind turbines.
The Lotus Creek Wind Farm is 100 per cent funded by the Queensland Government and is supported by the Commonwealth. The environmental cost of the project in the Connors Range adjacent to the Glencoe State Forest is well documented. Researchers counted 138 greater gliders during their environmental assessment. The old-growth trees provide hollow dens for the creatures to rest during the day. The area offers a rich habitat for Koalas and Squatter pigeons and is a refuge for the Powerful Owl and White-Throated Needletail, all classified as vulnerable.
The culpability is at the top of government.
An ecological assessment report listing five Matters of National Environmental Significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was placed on Tanya Plibersek’s desk shortly after she became Environment Minister in 2022. It gave Plibersek strong grounds to block the project as her Coalition predecessor, Sussan Ley, had done. Yet Plibersek overturned Ley’s decision and sanctioned the destruction of remnant bushland on the Great Dividing Range that was virtually untouched by farming.
The ACF has not raised an eyebrow about the Lotus Creek atrocity. Neither has it lodged an objection to Twiggy Forrest’s Upper Burdekin (Gawara Baya ) wind turbine development that received Plibersek’s rubber stamp in June. Ditto the French giant Neoen’s plans for Mount Hopeful 65 km west of Gladstone, approved by Plibersek in April, and the Boulder Creek Wind Farm she approved in June 2022, in which the Queensland State Government has a 50 per cent stake.
Cater continues:
Wind turbine developments also threaten to destroy greater glider and koala habitat at Mount Fox north of Ingham, Moah Creek and Boulder Creek to the west of Rockhampton. The Queensland government has approved all three, and Plibersek’s signature is regarded as little more than a formality.
The gulf between Plibersek’s actions and words is wide enough to be viewed from outer space. On Friday, Plibersek announced the Government would co-host the Global Nature Positive Summit next month in Gadigal Country, or Sydney as it was once known. “Australia can be a global leader in protecting and restoring nature and stopping biodiversity loss,” she said.
The “environmentalist” movement is at fault.
Yet our nature-positive Environment Minster has sanctioned the destruction of at least 1260 hectares of Greater Glider habit in old-growth forests in Queensland while supine environmental bodies like the ACF, Greenpeace and the Wilderness Society urge the Government to roll out renewables faster.
The three activist organisations, with a combined income of more than $58 million at their disposal last year, are staunch advocates of renewable energy and are strongly opposed to nuclear. None has been prepared to question the cumulative environmental damage of land-hungry wind, solar and pumped hydro schemes. They have shown little compassion for scores of rural communities with uglification forced upon them by pious city-based bureaucrats drawing lines on maps.
Continuing,
A decree by the European Union to ban imports of beef contaminated by de-forestation has gifted the laptop activists another chance to beat up on regional Australia.
The ACF is running a slippery campaign of moral equivalence to portray tightly regulated rotational clearance of woody growth on well-managed Australian farms with illegal tree-felling by cattle ranchers in the Amazon Basin.
The activists want to change the definition of “old-growth” to anything older than 15 years. If beef farmers become collateral damage in the EU’s virtue-signalling campaign, so be it. To them, anything that hastens the glorious vegan revolution must be good.
The Save Our Big Backyard campaign raises the green left to new level of unsteady, bare-faced hypocrisy. There is ample evidence to show that the biggest threat to the sanctity of our native vegetation and wildlife comes from wind and solar farmers, not the cattle industry. Vast hectares of land that have survived more than 200 years of settlement farming are being sacrificed for the sake of the planet.
Cater asks, what will Australia’s future citizens and government officials think about the anti-CO2 crusade in light of its collateral damage?
Future generations will look back at these people with disdain. They will gaze at scarred hillsides where dynamite was used to build access roads and clear the ground for vast concrete pads as big as a football field to erect giant wind turbines which will have long-since been removed. They will wonder how on earth an affluent, sophisticated and environmentally conscious nation could sanction such things.
Future anthropologists will write textbooks about the religious fervour that led early-21st-century humans to believe they could harvest energy directly from the wind and the sun. They will be puzzled as to why they didn’t adopt nuclear technology, just as cultural historians of Mesoamerica are curious why the Aztecs never discovered the wheel.
There are signs that we may be reaching peak madness as opposition to cowboy renewable energy developers grows in regional and rural Australia, and people in the city begin to latch on. The backlash is particularly noticeable in Queensland, where the Labor government appears to have given up hope of retaining any seat north of Sandgate. Anger about the rampant spread of solar, wind and transmission development proposals has galvanised communities into action. Anti-renewable billboards funded by small donations have begun to appear along the Bruce Highway south of Gympie….
Final Comment
Nick Cater speaks truth to wind power on ecological grounds. His persistence documents the “it’s hard being green” quandary of the modern environmental movement, which has made a pact with the devil in its one-dimensional crusade. Will real environmentalists please stand up?
Two weeks ago it was Microsoft reviving Three Mile Island’s nuclear plant. Now Google is buying seven small modular reactors, and Amazon is spending $500 million USD on part of a nuclear energy company.
Too bad for the deplorables who get stuck with the expensive wind-solar-battery clunker spaghetti-grid forced on them by the arts graduates in Parliament. An AI datacentre needs all the same thing a human city does — cheap gigawatts, 24 hours a day. The number-nerd men with money have all decided the cheapest reliable answer to running their AI data center cities, while pretending to fix the weather, is nuclear power. (Coal, of course, is cheaper which is why China uses so much, but it’s against the religion).
The unwashed masses won’t get that choice, of course, to sign up with whatever generator they want. Only the uber rich get that kind of luck.
Every one of these tech giants could have poured that money into wind farms and gardens of solar panels, backed up with acres of batteries and ten thousand miles of high voltage towers, pumped hydro, and synchronous condenser flywheels. But none of them want to pour in their own billions anymore, despite the social credit points bonanza and the bragging rights that would bring.
For twenty years these same people have been pushing the renewable hard sell on us, now overnight, without so much as a “sorry” they’ve all flipped, leaving us holding the can of decrepit national grids that can’t do what they were designed to do.
Google will build seven small nuclear reactors, the first by 2030…Our PM and the CSIRO must be feeling hung-out-to-dry. They declared nuclear was the most expensive option and said Australia couldn’t even build one before 2040.
Google has signed a landmark deal to use electricity produced by small nuclear reactors to power its artificial intelligence (AI) efforts.
Under the agreement with startup Kairos Power announced on Monday, the California-based tech giant will back the construction of seven small nuclear reactors capable of generating 500 megawatts of power. The first reactor is scheduled to come online by 2030, with others to follow in the coming years.
“The grid needs new electricity sources to support AI technologies that are powering major scientific advances, improving services for businesses and customers, and driving national competitiveness and economic growth,” Michael Terrell, the senior director of energy and climate at Google, said in a blog post.
Amazon is investing in US firm X-energy to utilise nuclear reactors to power its data centres.
Amazon and X-energy are aiming to have more than 5 gigawatts of SMR-generated power operational by 2039.
The reactors are currently under development, with none currently providing power to the electric grid in the US.
Big investors can help change that, and these announcements could be the “inflection point” that makes scaling up this technology truly possible, Huff said.
Feel the heat. Only weeks ago these same billionaires were raving about renewable energy, downranking and censoring the skeptics… now they are doing exactly what we said all along.
According to 80-year-old aerial photograph evidence, scientists (Nakanishi et al., 2024) report the coastline of their studied area (Hokkaido, Japan) has “receded by approximately 100 m seaward” since 1944. This is a continuation of the long-term, millennial-scale decline in relative sea level.
Relative sea levels are lower today than at any time in the last 7000 years.
According to 80-year-old aerial photograph evidence, scientists (Nakanishi et al., 2024) report the coastline of their studied area (Hokkaido, Japan) has “receded by approximately 100 m seaward” since 1944. This is a continuation of the long-term, millennial-scale decline in relative sea level.
Accounting for crustal deformations, earthquakes, tsunamis, and vertical land movements (e.g., uplift), the authors conclude relative sea levels were “at least 1 m higher than the present sea level” about 2000 years ago, and a “maximum sea level of +3 m was obtained at 6-4 ka.”
So, ever since about 4000 years ago, when carbon dioxide levels were alleged to be a “safe” 265 ppm, relative sea levels have been falling and CO2 levels have been rising. This negatively correlated pattern has continued into the 20th and 21st centuries.
Hurricanes Helene and Milton dealt Florida a potent one-two punch of high winds and storm surge. Helene’s dramatic rains flooded large areas of the American South.
The last thing people working to rebuild needed was unscientific posturing from the climate-Left and politicians playing for advantage, but of course that’s just what they got.
Hurricanes Helene and Milton dealt Florida a potent one-two punch of high winds and storm surge. Helene’s dramatic rains flooded large areas of the American South.
The last thing people working to rebuild needed was unscientific posturing from the climate-Left and politicians playing for advantage, but of course that’s just what they got.
The ever-further-left Greenpeace asked, “as hurricanes from Beryl to Milton leave huge destruction in their wake, who do you think should pay to rebuild and recover?” You know their answer — businesses and taxpayers in the free world.
Vice President Kamala Harris used the hurricanes to go full-on “Selina Myers.”
The NY Post reports that Vice President Harris, after not engaging in hurricane emergency prep during previous storms, sought to generate video of her working hurricane Milton. Harris was miffed when Governor DeSantis was too busy doing real hurricane prep to take her call. President Biden was no help when he told the press that DeSantis need not bother with Harris as he “was talking to him.”
During a video briefing that appeared to serve no other purpose than to insert Harris into the hurricane, she “could be seen covering her mouth, appearing to relay a message to someone else through a microphone and earpiece. The V.P. mumbled, ‘it’s a live broadcast’ behind her hands.”
There are few things team climate loves to demonize as much as cars with internal combustion engines and the energy companies that fuel them.
If you had to flee over 500 miles, as so many Floridians did to escape the hurricanes, would you rather trust your family to a long-range, fast fill up gas-fueled car, or a short-range, long charge, electric vehicle?
It was automobiles that enabled millions of Floridians to relocate to the safe havens of their choice over just two days. It is cars that now see them rolling safely home.
Electric vehicles could not have evacuated Florida.
How about those who want to eliminate all of our cars and replace them with trains?
Can you imagine millions of Floridians trying to escape the hurricane’s wrath by queuing up for trains? Of course not, it would have been impossible.
CFACT’s Chris Martz has a unique talent for countering climate exaggerations with hard scientific data. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted that the hurricanes were caused by human-induced climate change, Chris whipped out a chart showing actual Gulf of Mexico temperatures and hurricanes over the years with nothing like AOC’s claimed climate impact. Take a look:
As Marc Morano said on the Joe Piscopo show, “every crisis is an opportunity to exploit the climate agenda.” They don’t want you to know, for instance, that hurricanes striking the United States are not only occurring at normal rates historically, but that we recently enjoyed long stretches of historically low hurricane activity.
Hurricanes are natural and frequently tragic. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those in Florida, North Carolina and other places recently hit by them. Shame on Kamala, AOC and others on the Green-Left for using such tragic events to score political points.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) was founded in 1974, in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with a brief (as Wikipedia puts it) “to avoid future shocks by helping to ensure reliable energy supplies, promote energy efficiency, ensure energy security and encourage technological research and innovation.” It began with 16 founding member countries, and has since expanded to 31 (predominantly – but not exclusively, as that number includes Japan and South Korea – European or North American states).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) was founded in 1974, in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis, under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), with a brief (as Wikipedia puts it) “to avoid future shocks by helping to ensure reliable energy supplies, promote energy efficiency, ensure energy security and encourage technological research and innovation.” It began with 16 founding member countries, and has since expanded to 31 (predominantly – but not exclusively, as that number includes Japan and South Korea – European or North American states). All full member countries must be members of the OECD. The 13 Association countries are predominantly (but not exclusively) developing countries (at least as defined by the various UN COP Treaties), and include the likes of China, Indonesia, India and Brazil. The IEA is therefore nothing to do with the United Nations, and while its reports may carry a high status, it is arguably not the authoritative international body that many assume it to be (for example, for some reason, the BBC reports on it as being “the global energy watchdog”). There is an argument that half a century since its formation, it is now a cheerleader for renewable energy and for net zero. A quick look at its website creates that impression in my mind, in any event.
This week saw the publication of the latest of the IEA’s World Energy Outlook reports, this one being for 2024. This annual event is, as always, eagerly seized upon by the likes of the Guardian, whose headline (“Fossil fuels could become cheaper and more abundant, says IEA; International Energy Agency says transition to clean energy means there will be a surplus of oil, gas and coal”) rather surprised me, given that of all the things to take away from the report, one might have thought that good news for fossil fuel users wouldn’t be something they would seek to highlight. After all, it is only one point among very many indeed in a document that runs to almost 400 pages. And yet, the Guardian article commences thus:
Fossil fuels could soon become significantly cheaper and more abundant as governments accelerate the transition to clean energy towards the end of the decade, according to the International Energy Agency.
The world’s energy watchdog has signalled a new energy era in which countries have access to more oil, gas and coal than needed to fuel their economic growth, leading to lower prices for households and businesses.
The Paris-based agency’s influential annual outlook report found that energy consumers could expect some “breathing space” from recent spikes in global oil and gas prices triggered by geopolitical upheavals because investment in new fossil fuel projects has outpaced the world’s demand.
At almost 400 pages, however, the publication is far too long to report on in any detail, so I confine myself to making observations about those early parts of the report that are of interest to a climate and energy sceptic. I cheerfully admit to cherry-picking from the document, since the parts I omit will no doubt be pushed by the usual suspects, keen to promote the endlessly optimistic narrative around renewables that seems to be the IEA’s main purpose these days. I find the report to be most useful where it reports on what has already happened, rather than where it forecasts what is to happen, since only the former is truly meaningful, especially given the uncertainties around forecasting, which even the IEA repeatedly acknowledges within the body of the report.
The second paragraph of the introduction is something every sceptic could agree with:
Today, the greatest energy injustice is the hundreds of millions of people, mostly in Africa, who still lack access to basic energy services such as electricity or safe stoves for cooking.
Why then, cries the sceptic, give them access to cheap and reliable fossil fuels, rather than insist on them going down the expensive renewables route. For renewables are expensive, and this is certainly a problem for the developing world. At page 20, we are told:
Dividing lines are emerging on energy and climate, which can only be bridged if there is more help provided to poorer countries, communities and households to manage the upfront costs of change, including much greater international support. High financing costs and project risks are limiting the spread of cost-competitive clean energy technologies to where they are needed most, especially in developing economies where they can deliver the biggest returns for sustainable development and affordability. Lack of access to modern energy is the most fundamental inequity in today’s energy system, with 750 million people – predominantly in sub-Saharan Africa – remaining without access to electricity and more than 2 billion without clean cooking fuels.
This is particularly problematic, because (as we are told at page 17) “…the largest sources of rising demand for energy are, in descending order, India, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Africa…”. Perhaps they will overtake China, which has been in the forefront of energy demand lately. At page 18, we are advised that “…two-thirds of the global increase in electricity demand over the last ten years [has come] from China…”.
So rapid is the rise in demand for more electricity, that it is already projected by 2035 to be 6% higher than the IEA was projecting by that date just 12 months ago. But back to Asia. Still on page 18 we learn:
China has been the engine of oil market growth in recent decades, but that engine is now switching over to electricity: the country’s oil use for road transport is projected to decline in the STEPS [the Stated Policies Scenario], although offset by a large increase in oil use as a petrochemical feedstock. India becomes the main source of oil demand growth, adding almost 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 2035…
At page 19, the IEA says it expects “…importers in Asia… face a long-term rise in their dependence on oil and gas imports to nearly 90% for oil and around 60% for gas by 2050…”.
On page 20 we learn of more problems associated with renewables:
At the moment, for every dollar spent on renewable power, 60 cents are spent on grids and storage. By the 2040s, this reaches parity in all scenarios. Many power systems are vulnerable to an increase in extreme weather events and cyberattacks, putting a premium on adequate investments in resilience and digital security.
Despite that, the IEA manages, with a straight face (still on page 20) after a paragraph warning us of terrible consequences if (as they project) world temperatures will rise by 2.4C by 2100, to tell us that “…clean technologies that are increasingly cost-effective today are set to remain so, with greatly reduced exposure to the vagaries of commodity markets and lasting benefits for people and planet.”
Another summary ends on page 21 with what must surely (for the IEA and its acolytes) be a depressing conclusion:
The share of clean energy investment in emerging market and developing economies outside of China remains stuck at 15% of the total, even though these economies account for two-thirds of the global population and one-third of global GDP. A range of new business models and a policy push in some countries ensure that an additional 550 million people gain access to clean cooking and nearly 200 million to electricity in the STEPS between 2023 and 2030. This still falls well short of universal access goals.
Moving on to page 24, we embark on a more detailed analysis, beyond summary bullet points and headlines. The contrast between the developed, and developing, worlds could not be starker with regard to energy demand:
The last decade has seen the share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix gradually come down from 82% in 2013 to 80% in 2023.
Yes, you read that correctly. In ten years, fossil fuel use in the energy mix has declined by a measly 2%. But from the point of view of those who would eliminate fossil fuel use it’s worse than that, because:
Demand for energy has increased by 15% over this period and [only] 40% of this growth has been met by clean [sic] energy, i.e. renewables in the power and end-use sectors, nuclear, and low-emissions fuels, including carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS). In advanced economies, overall energy demand declined on average by 0.5% per year over the past decade. Oil demand peaked in this grouping in 2005, coal has been in structural decline since 2008 while natural gas, in aggregate, has ceased to grow. Nuclear has fallen around one-half percentage point per year, while renewables have increased by 3% per year since 2013. In emerging market and developing economies – a grouping that includes almost 85% of the world’s population – energy demand increased at around 2.6% per year over the last decade. The underlying drivers are a rise in the population of more than 720 million people, a 50% rise in the size of the economy and a 40% increase in industrial output. Floorspace in buildings has increased by 40 000 square kilometres, enough to cover the entirety of the Netherlands. With this rapid rate of development, clean energy has to work harder to displace oil, gas and coal in emerging market and developing economies than in advanced economies.
One might argue (I certainly would) that the STEPS analysis is hugely over-optimistic, but even on this basis, the IEA worries that we aren’t doing nearly enough. See page 25:
Although the STEPS sees a threefold increase in renewables that brings fossil fuel use down from 80% of total energy demand in 2023 to 58% in 2050, this falls far short of the step change that occurs in the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS) and the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 (NZE) Scenario, especially the latter.
Page 29 reiterates the (Indian/Asian) elephant in the room:
Asia has become the focal point for global oil and gas trade: it now imports more than twice as much oil as Europe, the next-largest importing region, and it eclipsed Europe as the largest market for imported natural gas in 2022 (Figure 1.5). In the STEPS, these trends continue. China – the world’s largest importer – sees its dependence on oil imports rise from around 75% today to more than 80% by 2050. Similar trends are projected for India, where natural gas dependence rises from 50% today to nearly 75%. Meanwhile, Southeast Asia, which is currently a net exporter of natural gas, becomes a net importer before 2030.
China again looms large on page 32 with regard to another problem associated with the developed world’s increasing reliance on renewable energy:
New energy security hazards are emerging as the world moves towards a more electrified and renewables-rich energy system, highlighting the need for policy makers to continually adjust and assess their approach to energy security. One issue of particular concern for many policy makers today is the concentration in a small number of countries of clean energy supply chains for manufacturing capacity and critical mineral mining and processing. China has a very large proportion of existing manufacturing capacity for key clean energy technologies. This includes 85-95% of global manufacturing capacity for battery cathode and anode materials, more than 80% of global solar PV manufacturing capacity, and more than 75-90% of the global processing capacity for cobalt, graphite and rare earth elements.
And on page 33:
Another concern is the level of critical mineral supplies that are available. For a number of critical minerals, supply growth from the pipeline of confirmed and announced projects is set to be slower than expected growth in demand. The situation is most pressing for copper and lithium, highlighting some new risks to supply security and clean energy transitions. Market signals should lead to the development of new projects, although new mining projects tend to have very long lead times. On the demand side, changes in battery chemistries or enhanced efforts for recycling may succeed in reducing demand.
The optimistic analysis regarding sales of electric vehicles (up to page 38) is well worth a read. It strikes me as whistling in the dark to keep one’s spirits up, but I may be wrong, and they may be correct. If they are correct, of course, then this brings its own problems – see page 39:
The share of electricity in total final consumption rises more rapidly than in the past in all three scenarios and across nearly all regions. This trend is a consequence of increased electrification in households and commercial buildings as well as in transport and industry. Most of this demand growth is from emerging market and developing economies. China dominates, but other countries make a significant contribution, especially after 2030. However, the pace of demand growth – and the uncertainties surrounding it – also pose challenges for ensuring a secure, affordable and sustainable electricity supply.
Page 42 shows a wonderful disregard of real-life trends in favour of their preferred scenario:
Faster uptake of heat pumps is central to efforts to boost energy efficiency and cut fossil fuel use in buildings. Although sales of heat pumps slowed in 2023 in some regions, and saw a major slowdown in Europe in the first half of 2024, their market share in space heating is still set to almost double by 2035 in the STEPS…
We saw more wishful thinking on page 44:
A larger share of variable renewables raises the potential for imbalances between available supply and demand. A good deal of seasonal energy demand is also transferred onto the power system through the increasing use of electric heating and cooling equipment. Electricity storage, stronger grids, demand-side response and dispatchable low-emissions sources of power are essential to meet flexibility requirements in clean energy transitions, and the STEPS sees investment in grids increase by nearly 70% to 2030 to modernise and extend them, and investment in battery storage nearly triples. Load patterns may also change as more end-uses become electric. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity. While the APS sees short-term flexibility requirements in 2050 increase up to seven times in some regions, it also sees half of those requirements met by maximising the scope for demand response, for example by shifting peak load to reflect when owners charge EVs or operate heat pumps. Measures of this kind would also help to keep household electricity bills down.
They clearly went to the same school as Mr Miliband. Investment in renewables (remember, it’s always an investment, never a cost) increases by 70% to 2030, and electricity bills will be kept down, despite the fact that as the percentage of renewables in the mix has increased, so has the cost of energy.
On page 45 we are told that “[s]olar PV and wind are now the cheapest electricity sources in most markets” but I can’t see any supporting evidence to back up the claim. If it were true, one might expect these forms of electricity production to be easily outstripping fossil fuel use, but it isn’t, as the IEA sadly has to concede (also page 45):
...growth in clean power generation has not kept pace with global electricity demand. Global output from low-emissions sources of electricity, including all renewable energy technologies, nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture, hydrogen and ammonia, increased by 4 800 TWh from 2010 to 2023, but global electricity generation increased by nearly 8 400 TWh (Figure 1.14). Wind and solar PV together accounted for three-quarters of clean power growth over the period, and hydro, bioenergy, geothermal and nuclear power (in that order) accounted for the final quarter. To fill the gap, global coalfired generation increased by almost 2 000 TWh (+23%) from 2010 to 2023 and gas-fired output increased by over 1 700 TWh (+36%). As a result, electricity sector CO2 emissions increased by 20% over the period, rising from 11.4 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2010 to 13.7 Gt in 2023…
As usual, the problem is starkest in Asia (page 46) and even in China, which the IEA repeatedly lauds for the growth of renewable energy:
In several emerging market and developing economies, low-emissions sources were not able to keep pace with overall electricity demand growth between 2018 and 2023, leading to increased use of coal and natural gas to generate power. China is the global market leader in the deployment of clean power technologies, including solar PV, wind, hydro and nuclear power, but it has also seen coal-fired power increase by over 20% and natural gas by 40% over the last five years. Since its electricity demand is far larger than that of any other country, the speed at which China transitions to clean energy is of huge significance, and it will be a landmark day when clean power growth in China outstrips overall electricity demand. India and Indonesia have increased clean power by 40% and 50% respectively over the past five years, but from a low starting point, and the use of unabated fossil fuels in the power sector has also increased significantly. Given the high level of dependence on coal in both countries, their near-term plans for clean energy transitions and long-term commitments to reach net zero emissions are crucially important…
Surprisingly perhaps (and this is where the Guardian headline becomes relevant) the report suggests (page 50) that:
A large new wave of LNG export capacity is also set to come on line: if all projects that are under construction are completed on time, available liquefaction capacity is expected to rise globally from 580 bcm per year today to 850 bcm per year in 2030. This increase in export capacity is larger than projected LNG demand growth in all three scenarios; the result is an overhang of capacity which is set to depress international gas prices and set the stage for fierce competition between suppliers.
At page 53 we see more evidence that the IEA can do little more than crystal ball gaze, since nobody, least of all them, can accurately predict the future. In effect, they say that supply of natural gas might exceed demand, in which case prices will fall; but then again, if renewables don’t expand as projected, then demand for natural gas will be higher, so the anticipated price falls might not happen. Who knows? Not the IEA, that’s for sure (not me, either):
In the STEPS, natural gas demand peaks before 2030 and declines throughout the 2030s, mainly due to the rapid deployment of renewables, heat pumps and other efficiency measures. But clean energy technologies could be adopted at a slower pace and scale than seen in the STEPS, and alongside other factors, this could lead to natural gas demand continuing to rise throughout the 2030s and beyond…
Page 61 repeats the puzzle created by the claim that solar and wind are cheap. If so, what’s the problem in developing countries? And there clearly is a problem:
Recent increases in clean energy investment come mostly from advanced economies and China, making up 85% of the total, while other emerging market and developing economies, home to two-thirds of the global population, account for just 15% (Figure 1.25). This misalignment is a major concern, given that demand for energy services in developing economies will inevitably increase in the coming years to support rising standards of living, universal access to energy and construction of modern infrastructure. The high cost of capital and lack of affordable long-term financing is a key contributor to these regional imbalances and an impediment to increasing capital flows to emerging market and developing economies in the future.
Turning once more to recent trends (the ones which surely most accurately point the way to imminent trends?), page 70 delivers some stark home truths:
Following an increase of 8 exajoules (EJ) in 2022, global energy demand increased by around 13 EJ in 2023, pushing up global demand by 2%. This reflects a growing requirement for energy in emerging market and developing economies which more than cancelled out a fall in energy demand in advanced economies of around 2%. There was a large increase in both oil and coal use globally, and two-thirds of the total increase in energy demand in 2023 was met by fossil fuels.
Global oil demand increased by 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2023 to 99 mb/d…
…Global coal demand increased by just over 100 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) in 2023 to around 6 000 Mtce, mainly because of increased use in the power sector in China and India…Demand in 2024 is expected to be slightly higher than in 2023 as strong electricity demand in China and India result in higher coal demand that more than offsets continued cuts in coal use in the European Union…
Page 71:
The energy sector is responsible for around 85% of total global CO2 emissions; energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.3% in 2023 to a record high of 37.7 gigatonnes (Gt). Emissions from coal drove most of the increase. Energy-related CO2 emissions were about 1 Gt higher in 2023 than in 2019. The world has clearly not yet turned the corner on emissions.
Page 76 illustrates (as we sceptics have been saying for some considerable time) the danger of creating a situation where China is so dominant:
Clean energy supply chains are also subject to geopolitical tensions. At present, China produces more than 80% of the world’s battery cells and solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, and 65% of wind nacelles (Figure 2.7). It dominates the midstream refining and processing of critical minerals, accounting for 65% of global processing for lithium and over 75% for cobalt and nearly all the graphite anode supply chain. China currently produces two-thirds of the world’s electric vehicles (EVs). Investment in these areas has picked up in the United States, European Union, India and elsewhere, and China’s share in global EV sales slipped from 70% in 2022 to 65% in 2023, but it is still very large. Consumers around the world have benefited from the reductions in technology costs that large-scale supply chain investment has brought. Nonetheless, such a high degree of concentration presents risks.
On page 85, a penny seems to drop:
Some changes roll back commitments to emissions reductions or clean energy deployment. This applies both to sustainability targets and the enabling measures that are designed to reach them. In some cases, these changes happen because ambitions were set at a level that now appears to be unrealistic. In 2019, for example, the administration in Scotland committed itself to a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 from their 1990 level. This target is now set to be dropped. At corporate level, there are many examples of firms adjusting their near-term targets, usually making them less stringent, in response to unfavourable market conditions, doubts surrounding government policy, or a realisation that achieving targets would be more difficult than initially assumed. In other cases, decision makers have argued that too much emphasis was being placed on energy transition measures at the expense of other goals, including those related to energy security and affordability, and changes in response to this sometimes mean longer timelines for introducing new technologies, or reduced incentives and policy support for their deployment.
The sector dealing with costs ends on page 96, and concludes with some real issues for the renewables sector:
…the proportion of costs accounted for by the cost of cathode raw materials in the battery pack price has been rising. Around 30% of the cost of a battery pack now depends on the cost of critical minerals, and battery costs are increasingly susceptible to mineral price volatility. Material substitution can mitigate price volatility to an extent, as it did when lithium iron phosphate battery chemistry displaced nickel-rich battery chemistries during the recent years of high nickel and cobalt prices. However, there is no alternative at present for some of the critical minerals used for particular functions in battery packs, including copper in the current collector in lithium-ion battery anodes and graphite in lithium-ion batteries. Manufacturing costs for wind turbines rose in second-quarter 2023 as a result of an increase in steel and freight costs. Companies in China have so far proven able to produce wind turbines at lower cost than their European counterparts. However, this has not translated into a large increase in exports due in large part to the costs and logistical complexities of moving large wind turbines very long distances. Offshore wind has higher upfront costs than onshore wind and solar PV. In 2023, developers struggled with project profitability due to inflation, high interest rates and supply chain challenges in connection with large turbine manufacturing and installation. Several contracts were cancelled because previously agreed prices became unviable. As ever, governments will need to pay close attention to market and cost dynamics as they design policies and support schemes for emerging technologies.
I mentioned above that the report is more useful when reporting on recent events than when it is speculating about the future. The report pretty much says as much itself when updating its projections, admitting that the 2023 report’s assumptions are being undone. And so, on page 101, we read this:
In the STEPS, the outlook for coal has been revised upwards particularly for the coming decade, principally as a result of updated electricity demand projections, notably from China and India. Total coal demand is 300 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce) or 6% higher in 2030 than in the WEO-2023. Even with this revision, coal demand declines by an average of 2% each year through to 2050. The outlook for total natural gas demand in the STEPS is also higher in 2024. This is mostly the result of stronger projected electricity demand growth, particularly in China, and an increase in natural gas supply reflecting expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) capacity. By 2035, total natural gas demand is around 175 billion cubic metres (bcm) or 4% higher in this year’s STEPS than in 2023. As in the WEO-2023, however, total natural gas demand flattens by the end of this decade. Higher electricity demand in the STEPS 2024 mainly reflects projected increased light industry activity, notably in China, much of it associated with a rapid rise in clean technology manufacturing. Upward revisions also reflect faster adoption of EVs, increased demand from data centres, and increased electrification of industrial processes in emerging market and developing economies. By 2035, electricity demand is over 2 000 terawatt-hours (TWh) or 6% higher in this edition than in the WEO-2023.
Also:
Global energy intensity reduced by 1% in 2023, a smaller improvement than the 2% reduction seen in 2022. Certain emerging market and developing economies made relatively slow progress, while there were significant energy intensity improvements elsewhere, including in the United States and European Union, largely driven by mild weather, high energy prices and reduced industrial activity
Pages 135-136 deal with fossil fuels, their share of the energy market and trends in developed and developing countries. After all those years of COPs and the seemingly never-ending headlines about the rapid growth of renewable energy, its fans might be surprised to read this (though it won’t surprise sceptics):
Fossil fuels met just under 80% of global energy demand in 2023, a share that has fallen very gradually since 2011, when it stood at 83%. Aggregate fossil fuel demand has continued to accompany broader economic growth, but in some areas this relationship is starting to loosen. This is particularly the case in advanced economies, which have seen their economies grow by 20% over the past ten years while fossil fuel use has contracted by nearly 10%, helped by investment in clean energy technologies, rising shares of services in the economy and efficiency improvements. In emerging market and developing economies, on the other hand, increasing energy needs have continued to push up fossil fuel use. Over the past ten years, their populations have swelled by 720 million people, they have experienced a 50% increase in economic growth and industrial output has risen by 40%. Floor space in buildings has increased by 40 000 square kilometres – enough to cover the entirety of the Netherlands – and fossil fuel consumption increased 25%. Nonetheless, per capita fossil fuel use in emerging market and developing economies remains at less than half the level of advanced economies; if emerging market and developing economies were to match this level, global fossil fuel use would be almost double what it is today.
Page 140 yet again emphasises the dominance of China with regard to energy, fossil fuel and all aspects of the net zero agenda:
The increase of petrochemicals production in China has been a key factor in recent oil market trends, displacing petrochemical output in other regions and offsetting demand reductions in other sectors (Figure 3.32). Oil demand for use as a petrochemical feedstock in China increased by over 1.5 mb/d between 2019 and 2023, which is 20% more than overall global oil demand growth in the same period. Alone the petrochemicals sector in China now uses more oil than the whole of Japan, which is the world’s fifth-largest oil consumer…Oil demand growth in China continues to be driven by increasing petrochemicals production for the next ten years. Even as overall oil demand peaks, its use as a chemical feedstock in China continues to rise, reaching around 5 mb/d by 2035. Domestic refineries cannot entirely satisfy this growth, and so naphtha and LPG imports double to almost 2.3 mb/d over the same period.
The United States has dominated recent global oil supply growth, accounting for over half of the increase in production since 2010…
The Americas certainly play an increasing role in this area:
Brazil, Argentina and Guyana add more than 2.5 mb/d to supply by 2035, expanding current fields and capitalising on recent discoveries…
As luck would have it, the website Oilprice,com has just published an article headed “Billion-Barrel Oil Discoveries Drive South American Energy Cooperation” reporting on the plans of Guyana and Suriname to “jointly develop offshore natural gas resources located near their shared border…This partnership comes as both countries experience significant growth in their oil industries, with ExxonMobil leading production in Guyana and TotalEnergies investing in Suriname.”
But back to the IEA Report. Page 143 reiterates (in my words, not the IEA’s) that we can hold annual Conferences of the Parties until the cows come home, but the ongoing demand for fossil fuels in Asia makes a nonsense of the process:
The Middle East remains the largest crude oil exporter in all scenarios, and the share of its exports flowing to emerging market and developing economies in Asia risesfrom 25% of total seaborne crude trade today to 40% by 2050 in the STEPS. As a result, the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia becomes the world’s largest chokepoint for oil and gas trade, with a higher volume of oil passing through it than the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint in the Persian Gulf. China remains the world’s largest oil importer through to 2050 in the STEPS, and India and Southeast Asia see imports increase by around 35% by that date. By 2050, crude oil import dependency in Asia rises from about 80% today to 90% in all scenarios….
…Global natural gas demand increased by 0.5% in 2023, with a 40 bcm contraction in advanced economies, led by Europe, offset by 60 bcm of growth in emerging market and developing economies, led by China and the Middle East. A wave of new supply is also on the horizon: 270 bcm of new LNG export terminals are under construction, and will add another 50% to global LNG capacity, alongside an additional 200 bcm of annual production from upstream projects sanctioned since early 2022 that target local markets. Natural gas demand has been revised upward in all scenarios compared with the WEO-2023, reflecting stronger anticipated demand for gas to meet growth in electricity demand in China as well as additional demand in the Middle East, where policies to shift away from oil in electricity generation have been reaffirmed. In the STEPS, the level of demand in 2030 has been revised up by 130 bcm compared to the Outlook in 2023, reaching just over 4 400 bcm before demand peaks. Low-emissions gases – biogas, biomethane and hydrogen – are poised to see strong growth in all scenarios.
And at page 148 we learn that the 2023 estimate is already outdated and too low:
Due to an upward adjustment to projected natural gas demand growth to 2030, LNG demand growth in the STEPS is higher than in the WEO-2023, reaching more than 700 bcm by 2035.
Asia continues to drive demand for coal, too (page 150):
China remains the largest consumer of coal, accounting for over half of global coal demand in 2035 in each scenario, but surging growth in renewables and slowly declining demand in industry lead coal use in China to fall over the next few years. India is the second-largest coal consumer and is the main driver of future demand growth: its coal use increases in power to 2030 and in industry to 2050 in the STEPS, and its energy-related CO2 emissions continue to rise before peaking around 2035. Demand increases steadily in a number of countries in Southeast Asia. Almost everywhere else, however, the STEPS sees coal demand head downwards. Advanced economies have historically consumed more coal per capita than emerging market and developing economies, but this has changed in recent years as they have retired coal plants or run them less frequently, while many emerging market and developing economies have installed new plants and used coal to meet rising energy needs. In 2023, 26 GW of coalfired generation capacity were retired globally, 88% of them in advanced economies, while 65 GW were added, almost all in emerging market and developing economies: China accounted for 47 GW (73%) of these global capacity additions….
…Global coal production reached a new record in 2023, driven by growth in China, India and Indonesia. Over 30 new mines opened, 25 in China and four in India (Global Energy Monitor, 2024). China accounted for around 55% of global coal supply. India nearly overtook Indonesia as the second-largest coal producer following two years of record increases in production, and it plans to double coal output by 2030. Despite raising production, China continued to increase coal imports in 2023, while Indonesia and Mongolia raised exports…
And there, dear reader, I will end, albeit only three-eighths of the way through the report. This piece is already long enough, but the above should provide enough evidence that (despite the IEA’s attempts to play up the progress of renewable energy and to emphasise efficiency gains and other grounds to hope that reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases are imminent) the demand for energy continues to grow relentlessly, the IEA’s predictions continue to be falsified by reality, and that the proportion of the energy mix attributable to renewable energy is growing painfully slowly. Indeed, with COP29 just around the corner, fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions are both continuing to grow, and there is little if any evidence that the COP process is making any impact at all in this regard.
It will be interesting in due course to see if the IEA’s 2025 Report will similarly have to row back on the predictions it has made in 2024.
The ever-changing climate continues to be a perverse obsession with the Biden administration and will continue in earnest if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected next month, notwithstanding her deliberate reticence on the subject during her presidential campaign.
The ever-changing climate continues to be a perverse obsession with the Biden administration and will continue in earnest if Vice President Kamala Harris is elected next month, notwithstanding her deliberate reticence on the subject during her presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, the Biden-Harris federal bureaucracy continues to be the largest purveyor of climate lies. This began with President Biden’s executive order one week after assuming office, to require a “government-wide approach to the climate crisis” to control the populace and steer the nation to a climate war footing.
This alphabet soup of federal bureaucracies paid handsomely by the American taxpayer are the major propagandists of climate disinformation and misinformation, most insidiously those aimed at children, including by manipulating data to advance a false narrative. The Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of Education are among the primary malefactors that impact climate teaching in schools.
If you thought NASA was just about space exploration, you would be wrong. Instead, the agency is a major propagator of climate doom. From its “Climate Kids” website is this gem of falsehoods:
Too much carbon dioxide in the air makes Earth get warmer and warmer. When humans burn fossil fuels, like gasoline and coal, carbon dioxide is produced…We need to keep a close watch on this number [416 parts per million of atmospheric CO2]. Carbon dioxide levels have gone sky-high in the past 100 years. Many scientists think that 350 ppm is a much healthier number and that we should try to reduce our use of fossil fuels to get that number back.
The drivel is endless. More carbon dioxide does not make the planet “warmer and warmer.” The late scientist Dr. Jay Lehr and others have documented that solar rays, ocean currents and orbital patterns have far more influence on climate compared to carbon. Imagine that: the sun impacts climate!
The “many scientists,” who are typically unnamed incorrectly claim less CO2 is “much healthier.” Rather, CFACT has documented that higher carbon levels have made a healthier, greener planet, including increased global vegetation, forestry and food supplies, as discussed by Larry Bell, head of the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston and others.
“Reduc[ing] our use of fossil fuels to get” lower CO2 levels, as in “burn” less gasoline and coal, is sheer folly. The reality, as shown by engineer Ronald Stein and many others, is that previous planetary warming periods long pre-date humans and fossil fuel use. Modern records show higher carbon emissions do not correspond with global temperatures, such as when temperatures declined after World War II when CO2 spiked.
Then there is the NOAA, which has an education sub-bureaucracy to advance climate extremism since it evidently doesn’t have enough to do tracking hurricanes and weather patterns. One of its many misinformation nuggets is that humans are the “main cause” of global warming with increased CO2 in the atmosphere since 1860 – a year conveniently chosen since it marks the approximate end of what is known as the “Little Ice Age.”
Again, human activity has no bearing on the up-and-down global temperature over decades, centuries and certainly millions of years, as shown by examining geological data that reveal the planet today is cooler than during most of its estimated existence.
It’s bad enough the adults in government and large institutions groupthink each other and try to bamboozle the public using the news media echo chamber. It is worse to scare young people in their own classrooms, indoctrinating them from kindergarten through 12th grade about the planet’s supposed imminent demise and that of their own future. Indeed, school districts from New Jersey to California are implementing this subtle form of child exploitation, with “Climate Change Education.”
The negative effects of this one-sided inculcating of climate dogma on children are alarming, as multiple studies have shown high rates of anxiety among them. A 2023 survey of climate literature found “traumatizing effects” of climate change on young people. In 2021, an extensive survey of thousands of children across 10 countries, including the U.S., found “climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning.”
In disturbing reality, the U.S. Government is the biggest perpetrator of misinformation and disinformation. The salient examples are well known, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the surrender in Afghanistan, and the number of jobs created. Add to that the Feds showcasing climate junk science including the blizzard of lies told schoolchildren, with the NASA and NOAA examples being the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Since our government incessantly lies to the public to advance its political agenda, which is to control every aspect of our lifestyles, including health, diets, travel, material well-being and our security, sadly it should come as no surprise it would lie to our children to control the generations that come after us.
“Could both sides of the climate debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Man, meet Alex Epstein.”
“Could both sides of the climate debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Man, meet Alex Epstein.”
On LinkedIn, I reposted Bjorn Lomborg’s “We could stop scaring people witless with climate exaggeration,” and added the comment:
Is there any good reason for climate exaggeration–particularly to the mentally weak prone to ‘climate anxiety’? Is this a good thing even to the climate activists?
The mentally weak prone to “climate anxiety”? That is the most insulting, bigoted thing I have ever heard. Check yourself Mr Bradley, look long and hard and never use the term mentally weak try and support your argument.
Exaggeration and failed doomist predictions mark the climate debate. Here is my example from 1988.
There are hundreds more examples since 1988. And it is the children who are most at risk from climate doom propaganda. They need to hear the optimistic side of CO2/climate–that is only fair! Mentally weak adults scared of the climate future should also receive both sides of the debate.
Isn’t this fair? This should be in the Code of Ethics for psychologists dealing with climate anxiety issues.
Henrick Nordborg, program director, Renewable Energy and Environment Technology at OST in Switzerland, stated:
I am also in favor of banning all fire alarms and fire exits. They only make people nervous.
I responded: “Totally false analogy. That’s coercion.”
I was recently harassed in my DMs by a self-proclaimed “Climate Psychologist”. She said the damage that people like me and others in the fossil fuel industry have done to the environment and generations of people is incalculable.
Doomism Reconsidered
Emotions run high in the climate debate. But the purveyors of doom-and-gloom are stuck in emotional quicksand. They can continue in their woe-is-me or constructively work toward human betterment in the face of uncertainty and change. This is where fossil fuels turn into the solution, not the problem. As Alex Epstein has noted (The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, pp. 126–127):
“The popular climate discussion … looks at man as a destructive force for climate livability … because we use fossil fuels. In fact, the truth is the exact opposite; we don’t take a safe climate and make it dangerous; we take a dangerous climate and make it safe. High-energy civilization, not climate, is the driver of climate livability.”
And as alarmist Michael Mann himself stated in a weak moment:
… hot takes, hyperbole, and polarizing commentary best generate clicks, shares, and retweets. I often encounter, especially on social media, individuals who are convinced that the latest extreme weather event is confirmation that the climate crisis is far worse than we thought…. increasingly today we see it with climate doomists…. This is not true, or at best partly true.
Could both sides of the debate just agree that it is time for resiliency before the fact and adaptation after the fact in the face of weather extremes, whatever the cause? David Shukman seems to think so.
Alex Epstein, meet Michael Mann. Michael Man, meet Alex Epstein. The mitigation strategy has not and is not working, while engendering unintended consequences.
His significance remarks regarding Florida’s hurricane history and impacts as well as actions being taken to address Hurricane Milton’s outcome merit being displayed in print as best as possible as well as being listened to at several websites that carried his extraordinarily competent news conference remarks.
Governor DeSantis provided a spectacular example of political leadership while demonstrating his climate science knowledge and credibility when he addressed a news conference regarding the state’s situation and status in dealing with the aftermath of Hurricane Milton as shown below.
His significance remarks regarding Florida’s hurricane history and impacts as well as actions being taken to address Hurricane Milton’s outcome merit being displayed in print as best as possible as well as being listened to at several websites that carried his extraordinarily competent news conference remarks.
Toward that end I have tried to summarize and encapsulate his key remarks and capture the many hurricane climate science perspectives addressed by Governor DeSantis as an example of competent climate science political leadership and knowledge.
In response to a reporter’s question attempting to connect “human caused global warming” to increasing numbers and impacts of hurricanes and tornadoes Governor DeSantis noted:
“Tornadoes – I think you can go back and find tornadoes for all human history, for sure, especially in Florida.
How does this storm rate – in kind of – the history of storms.
I think this storm hit with a barometric pressure of – what was it – about 950 millibars when it hit,”
“If you go back to 1851, there’s probably been 27 hurricanes that have had lower barometric, so the lower the barometric pressure, the stronger it is”.
“I think there have been about 27 hurricanes that have had lower barometric pressure on landfall than Milton did, and of those, 17 occurred I think prior to 1960.”
“The most powerful hurricane on record since the 1850s in the state of Florida occurred in the 1930s, the Labor Day Hurricane, barometric pressure on that was 892 millibars,”
“It totally wiped out the Keys. We’ve never seen anything like it, and that remains head and shoulders above any powerful hurricane that we’ve ever had in the state of Florida.”
“The deadliest hurricane the state has ever faced was the Okeechobee hurricane in 1928, which killed more than 4,000 people.”
“Fortunately, we aren’t going to have anything like that this time.”
“So, I just think people should put this in perspective there.”
“They try to take different things that happen with tropical weather and act like it’s something, there’s nothing new under the sun”.
You know, this is something that the state has dealt with for its entire history, and it’s something that will continue to deal with.”
“I think what’s changed is we’ve got 23 million people, a storm that hits are likely to hit more people and property than it would have 100 years ago, and so the potential for that damage has grown, but what’s also changed is our ability to do the prevention, to pre-stage the assets,”
“I mean, we never did the pre-staging of power assets until I became governor. Now, people like expect that, but that wasn’t what was done in the past.”
“That’s why people would be out with power for three weeks when we have hurricanes, we thought that that’s not good. Now we have to pay to get these guys to come in, but my view is, the quicker you get everyone hooked up, the better off the economy is going to be anyway.”
In response to another reporter’s question regarding the claim that human caused global warming was causing increasing intensification of storms Governor DeSantis noted:
“Oh, I think most people remember 2004, right, where it seemed like we had storms occur every other week”
“You know that we had no hurricanes at all from 2006 to 2016.”
“There was a time period we had a lot of hurricanes in the 1940s.”
“So, this situation has a lot of similarities to what happened in 2004.”
What a breath of fresh air from a competent political leader addressing climate science reality instead of politically contrived climate alarmism speculation and hype.
LNG Canada to boost and stabilize Canadian natural gas prices? Not so fast…
There was a worthwhile read here last week in the BOE Report entitled “Canadian natural gas firms eager for LNG boom swamp market with excess supply”, which sums up the current situation quite well. It is astonishing that over the summer, the lowest-priced thing I can think of – candy, a stamp, anything – was a gigajoule of natural gas, and ten of those can look after a modest home for a month. What a world.
There was one potential caveat in the article, however – speculation that LNG Canada’s activity is expected to “reduce volatility in the AECO market.” Hmm…not so sure about that.
The premise is that new LNG exports will provide added demand via a brand new outlet for natural gas. LNG Canada will certainly do that, but it will also introduce a wildcard into the equation.
Presently, the existing system is remarkably stable on a day to day basis, with any significant outages generally planned and announced well in advance. But LNG terminals are not like that.29dk2902lhttps://boereport.com/29dk2902l.html
There are many events that can occur in very short order that can shut down an LNG terminal, because these terminals do not have significant (or any) gas storage accompanying them (or LNG Canada doesn’t anyway) that can act as a buffer in the even of a power outage, bad weather, an equipment failure, an accident…the list is lengthy, and each can bring the LNG off take to a standstill, quickly, with significant impacts.
Such speculation is not without precedent. Two years ago, a single US LNG export facility went out of service after a relatively minor explosion, and it had a negative impact on US natural gas prices for 8 months.
Consider also that the US natural gas market is what Nassim Taleb would call “robust” in one sense; the country is laced with major NG pipeline systems, and gas can often flow bidirectionally. Thus, the US market – which is also huge – was able to absorb the 2 bcf/d that was pushed back into the market, with a discernible but not devastating price impact.
The US natural gas system in another sense would earn Taleb’s classification of “antifragile” – that which grows stronger through stresses – because it is continuously strengthened by such stressors, new pipe is built as required to enable new production and connect to new markets – to the extent that regulations and enemies will allow (which, for now, pretty much means “only build in Texas” but that could change depending on which butt lands in the White House).
Canada’s natural gas market, on the other hand, is considerably more fragile in the sense of becoming dysfunctional at even a relatively minor whim or nature or incident. Recall a few years ago when an Enbridge gas line blew up outside of Prince George in northern BC – one of two that brings gas to the lower mainland. The other line was shut down for two days for inspections, and as a result of the reduced flow some schools in Vancouver turned off heat in buildings and reduced temperatures in classrooms.
If a natural gas system is extensive and web-like, it can maintain resilience, stability, and function well even if one part of it suffers a failure of some kind. If a system is constrained and highly dependent on a limited number of access points, both for supply and offtake, the risk of volatility increases significantly, and the risk to consumers grows to unhealthy levels. Everyone should be thankful those chilly gas-deprived Vancouver students in a coastal October were not Winnipeg students in ears-fall-off January.
On the other hand, LNG usage is soaring and Canada might catch the wave yet despite our habits
Dan Yergin, the senior oil patch observer and author of the legendary book The Prize, recently wrote an article for S&P Global called “The return of energy security”. It’s chock full of good information about how the world is recognizing that an energy transition may be an admirable goal but that there is no doubt it is going to take a back seat to energy security. Much of the world is not as cavalier as we are, but then much of the world does not have the, ahem, phenomenally skilled oil and gas workforce that we do here in North America.
Yergin notes, “The biggest emphasis on the need for reliable and affordable energy is in the developing world, where 80% of the world’s population lives… Attaining energy security is basic to making progress out of poverty in general and remedying the lack of access to commercial energy and electricity… Natural gas is a particular focus for promoting economic development — and for reducing emissions.”
He’s not whistling Dixie. Much of the world is stampeding to secure LNG supplies. Per the above article, India earlier this year announced a $67 billion investment plan to expand India’s natural gas infrastructure. Colombia, which has vast natural gas reserves of its own, is looking to increase its LNG import capacity. Malaysia, one of the world’s top exporters of LNG, is looking to increase imports of LNG to meet soaring consumption.
Other countries are racing to meet the new demand. The US has, in one measly decade, become the world’s largest LNG exporter, including by using some basic infrastructure developments started 25 years ago when the US was planning to import LNG to meet its needs (the US shale boom was something else, adding about 20 percent to world supplies in 15 years). Even Saudi Arabia announced plans to become a major LNG player, signing a 20 year offtake agreement from a new US LNG terminal.
Overall, the Gas Exporting Countries Forum, a group of guess-what’s comprised of 12 member countries and 7 observer countries (observing gas? The ultimate government job), expects global natural gas demand to increase from 4,015 billion cubic meters in 2022 to 5,360 bcm by 2050, a 34 percent increase, and with no peak in site. Because the LNG trade is anchored by multi-billion dollar terminals, which often require multi-decade contracts in order to obtain financing, much of this demand/trade is being baked into the system for decades to come, so even if the GECF is talking it’s book, they have very good reason to be believed.
In front of this global steamroller of natural gas development, Canada stands alone, with our leadership turning away an LNG-begging Germany with admonishments to get serious about climate change and just sit back and wait for Canada’s green hydrogen economy to develop (haha) and you’ll get the first boatload (or whatever it arrives in once we determine how in the heck to build such a castle in the sky) (German leaders then flew to Senegal, looking to trump Canada’s leadership’s peculiar stance, encouraging the Senegalese to develop their reserves and ship to Europe; ultimately the Germans simply signed a long term LNG deal with the US, who by some unbelievable skillset found the ‘business case’ that Canada found lacking).
And don’t even get me started on data center demand, which is getting more crazy by the hour it seems. The biggest AI players have now all raced to lock up existing or nearly-existing nuclear power (Amazon, Google, Microsoft) because it is the only emissions-free 24/7 baseload power available. Everyone else will be scrambling for whatever 24/7 baseload they can get, and, as with the newly rediscovered importance of energy security, these firms will place AI development over any qualms about what sort of energy they are sourcing. Natural gas is the best choice because of its availability, speed of development, and relatively clean burning. So look to AI data centers to pop up wherever there are natural gas supplies – it will shave years off the process if the data center developers can build a power source independent of the electrical grid (which is to development plans what quicksand is to humans).
Five years old, and the future painted within is turning out pretty much exactly as expected (ok, I missed the nuclear renaissance, sue me). Pick up The End of Fossil Fuel Insanity, where energy is actually entertaining. Available at Amazon.ca, Indigo.ca, or Amazon.com.
Read more insightful analysis from Terry Etam here, or email Terry here.
An Associated Press (AP) article picked up by the political website, The Hill, claims that Greece is unwillingly becoming the recipient of refugees from the Middle East and Africa that are migrating due to climate change, among other things. This is false. There is no evidence that long-term climate change is forcing anyone to migrate internally within borders or emigrate to foreign nations. This climate change “refugee” story is an ongoing narrative that has been going on in the media for more than 30 years, despite the fact there is no data to support it.
An Associated Press (AP) article picked up by the political website, The Hill, claims that Greece is unwillingly becoming the recipient of refugees from the Middle East and Africa that are migrating due to climate change, among other things. This is false. There is no evidence that long-term climate change is forcing anyone to migrate internally within borders or emigrate to foreign nations. This climate change “refugee” story is an ongoing narrative that has been going on in the media for more than 30 years, despite the fact there is no data to support it.
Voultepsi expressed alarm at the growing number of refugees in Lebanon because of ongoing Israeli airstrikes targeting the militant group Hezbollah, and added: “Countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, and South Sudan … are affected by both war and climate change, creating an ever-growing flow of migrants towards Europe.”
Greece is a major entry point for migrants into the European Union, with most crossing from Turkey and Libya in unsafe boats.
First, let’s tackle the obvious. In the article while climate change is mentioned as a driver of refugees from Africa, there is not one mention of how this comes to be. AP simply mentions it as if it were fact without any reference to support it.
As Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed, no evidence shows climate refugees exist. For example, this article from November 2022, “No, CBS News, Drought in Somalia is Not Being Driven by Climate Change,” clearly demonstrated that Somalia, due to its location, is normally mostly arid, as monsoon winds lose most of their moisture by the time they reach the country. This makes it more sensitive to changes in ocean currents than other countries. Plus, history demonstrates that droughts in Somalia have been common all the way back to the 1700’s. Data from the last 120 years in Figure 1 shows rainfall in the Sahel part of Africa, including Somalia, to be highly variable.
The Sahel is a transitional zone between the Sahara Desert to the north and the savannas of North-Central Africa to the south. It includes Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger, plus Cameroon, Gambia, Guinea, Nigeria, Senegal, Sudan, and South Sudan.
Figure 1. More than a century of rainfall data in the Sahel show an unusually wet period from 1950 until 1970 (positive index values), followed by extremely dry years from 1970 to 1991. (negative index values). From 1990 until present rainfall returned to levels slightly below the 1898–1993 average, but year-to-year variability was high. Source: Benedikt Seidl – based on JISAO data
In short, drought in the Sahel band in North Africa is a normal and regular occurrence that happened long before man-made climate change was ever an issue. The conclusion then is that other factors, such as war, poverty, political strife, and lack of a stable food supply are the drivers of African refugees rather than the imagined impact of climate change.
The AP article also says the Middle East is a source of migrants for Greece, while lumping it in with “climate change” as the cause. This too is unsupported by the data.
The biggest reason for migration from the Middle East is armed conflict and political instability in the region, which often leads to people fleeing war, civil conflict, persecution, political corruption, and human rights violations, resulting in large numbers of refugees and displaced persons. A report by the Pew Research Center Middle East’s Migrant Population More Than Doubles Since 2005, says,
Some of this growth was due to individuals and families seeking economic opportunities. But the majority of the migration surge, especially after 2011, was a consequence of armed conflict and the forced displacement of millions of people from their homes, many of whom have left their countries of birth.
All told, the Middle East’s migrant population increased by about 120% between 2005 and 2015. This far exceeds increases in the combined international migrant and forcibly displaced populations over the same period in continental Africa (91% growth), Latin America and the Caribbean (77%) and the Asia-Pacific region (26%).
The word “climate” isn’t mentioned even once in the report.
Clearly, climate isn’t a driver of refugees into Greece or other countries. People are fleeing the conditions that affect their everyday lives, not some imagined and non-existent threat from climate change. The AP and The Hill could take a lesson from the embarrassing and telling episode from the United Nations where they fabricated a climate migration crisis that never happened. In 2005, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) issued a warning that a whopping 50 million people could already become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.
It is sad that The Hill chose to republish this false article without doing any due diligence to check the claims. It is doubly sad that the AP, with resources worldwide, didn’t even do a modicum of research before making the false unsourced connection between Greece’s migrant crisis, and climate change. A modicum of research easily proves such a connection false. Such is the pathetic state of our journalism today.
You must be logged in to post a comment.