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.
Costs exceed benefits many times over
New study from Net Zero Watch corrects significant flaws in earlier estimates.
With current technology, cost to 2050 is £10 trillion, and costs are ten times the benefits.
With most optimistic assumptions, cost is £7 trillion and costs are double the benefits.
New study from Net Zero Watch corrects significant flaws in earlier estimates.
With current technology, cost to 2050 is £10 trillion, and costs are ten times the benefits.
With most optimistic assumptions, cost is £7 trillion and costs are double the benefits.
Net Zero Watch has published a new study that encompasses the first empirically based estimate of the costs of Net Zero, and the first cost-benefit analysis. Official estimates have been criticised as hugely overoptimistic and for failing to present a formal cost-benefit analysis.
The study is the first to consider the full variability of the weather and its effects on both supply and demand for energy, and finds that much larger capacities of wind solar and energy storage will be required to deliver Net Zero than suggested in any previous Net Zero cost estimate.
It is also the first to base its cost figures, where possible, on empirical data. Previous estimates have assumed that a renewables cost revolution has already taken place, a position that is refuted by the accounts of wind and solar farms.
The study takes in different scenarios of how technologies and their costs might develop as we head to Net Zero, as well as a scenario in which we abandon renewables and return to fossil fuels. Each also incorporates estimates of the harms caused by any remaining carbon dioxide emissions – the so-called social cost of carbon – to each scenario, so that the optimal approach can be identified.
In all cases, the cost-optimal approach is to return to fossil fuels, even once global warming harms are taken into account.
With current technology, the spend to 2050 would be nearly £10 trillion pounds, amounting to over £300,000 per household. The costs would be double the benefits – the reduction in global warming harms.
In the most optimistic scenario – in which Net Zero technologies are assumed to become very cheap and very efficient compared to today, fossil fuel prices are assumed to rise steadily, and a high cost is assumed for each tonne of emissions – the costs are still double the benefits. In this scenario, the UK still needs to pay out £7 trillion, or £250,000 per household.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford, the author of the report, said:
These figures are horrifying, but should still be seen as conservative, because the study makes no attempt to find costs for hard-to-decarbonise sectors, such as aviation and shipping. It’s clear that the UK is on the road to economic ruin.”
In his foreword to the study, Lord Mackinlay said:
Britain’s political consensus, it seems, is to tax CO2 emissions at a higher rate than the damage they do and then spend trillions more subsidising technologies that the public would not choose without compulsion. This cannot be sustainable.”
If Renewables are the cheapest form of energy, why does the EU need a carbon border tax to protect EU based industries?
Q&A: Can ‘carbon border adjustment mechanisms’ help tackle climate change?
The EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) has been touted as a key policy for cutting emissions from heavy industries, such as steel and cement production.
By taxing carbon-intensive imports, the EU says it will help its domestic companies take ambitious climate action while still remaining competitive with firms in nations where environmental laws are less strict.
There is evidence that the CBAM is also driving other governments to launch tougher carbon-pricing policies of their own, to avoid paying border taxes to the EU.
It has also helped to shift climate and trade up the international climate agenda, potentially contributing to a broader increase in ambition.
However, at a time of growing protectionism and economic rivalry between major powers, the new levy has proved controversial.
…
Analysis also suggests that the EU’s CBAM, in isolation, will have a limited impact on global emissions.
…
If nations lose carbon-intensive businesses because they close down or choose to do business elsewhere, this could harm the economies of nations trying to implement carbon pricing. At the same time, it could increase global emissions, if domestic manufacturing is simply replaced by more carbon-intensive imports.
The hallmark of cheap energy is you can manufacture products at a lower cost than other people. Why would anyone need a carbon tax on imports if their goods were already cheaper than everyone elses?
China dominates global manufacturing, because their low cost coal powered economy gives them a competitive edge.
If the cost of manufacturing an energy intensive product is 50% energy + 25% materials + 25% labor, halving the cost of energy reduces the manufacturing cost by 25%.
No such transformation is occurring in the EU. The EU is an economic hellscape, a place where ordinary consumers are punished with legally mandated higher prices thanks to carbon border adjustment taxes. The need for such a border adjustment tax is all the evidence anyone should need that renewables are a horribly expensive form of energy.
If renewables truly were delivering cheap energy to the EU, the EU would not need a border tax to prevent cheap imports from undercutting and wrecking EU based manufacturing. If renewable energy had any capacity to deliver cheap energy, renewable powered manufacturing hubs would be springing up across the EU, flooding the world with low cost energy intensive goods which even China would be unable to undercut.
The Facebook website Wind Farm Living published this explainer on noise from industrial wind turbines. (Click on the illustration for more visual clarity)
Once considered Rhode Island’s most esteemed environmental Non-Profit, Save the Bay Rhode Island is now failing to operate in accordance with its mission. With the nation’s first offshore turbine farms, one of the largest marine construction projects in history, going live in waters just 12- 24 miles off the Rhode Island coasts – locals, preservationists, fisherman, and boating enthusiasts are asking, “Where is Save The Bay?”
Once considered Rhode Island’s most esteemed environmental Non-Profit, Save the Bay Rhode Island is now failing to operate in accordance with its mission. With the nation’s first offshore turbine farms, one of the largest marine construction projects in history, going live in waters just 12- 24 miles off the Rhode Island coasts – locals, preservationists, fisherman, and boating enthusiasts are asking, “Where is Save The Bay?”
Since the 1970’s, when citizens came together to fight an oil refinery proposed in Tiverton, Save The Bay has been considered the leader of environmental stewardship in Rhode Island. For over forty years, Save the Bay has “worked to protect, restore, and improve the ecological health of the Narragansett Bay.”
They honor that legacy by claiming to serve, “as the eyes, ears and voice for Narragansett Bay.” Overseen by a board of directors and a board of trustees, as an organization, Save the Bays daily operations are run by Executive Director Topher Hamblett. The board of trustees, appointed Hamblett to his position last January.
A quick review of their website revealed that this project, one that will have implications for the State of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay, its watershed and adjacent coastal waters for generations to come – is not mentioned. It is not mentioned in their advocacy work or in their legislative agendas. In a web tab titled BAY ISSUES , the organization reminds us that, “Narragansett Bay is truly an environmental treasure that connects communities in Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts with the Atlantic Ocean.
It is our greatest public asset and the symbol of the region’s history and culture.” Why then, is the largest ocean industrialization project in this nation’s history, a project using Narragansett Bay as its electromagnetic cable route, as a wind vessel refuge, and as a cargo lane from shore to farm, not even listed as a bay issue?
To recap, in an auction bidding process, close to one Million acres of Rhode Island and Massachusetts ocean was leased to 9 separate wind companies. These companies have been selected to develop wind farms off the coast of Rhode Island. Upon completion, along with hundreds of miles of cables running up Narragansett bay, 1,000 turbines standing btw 800-1300 feet tall, covering over a million acres of ocean, along with five Substations (with living quarters and helicopter pads for maintenance) will be erected within this lease area.
According to an April 26, 2024 TAX FILING , the organization’s mission and most significant activities include, “the protection, restoration, and improvement of the ecological health of the Narragansett Bay region, including its watershed and adjacent coastal waters…” With the sonar, ship traffic and construction of these projects levying severe adverse impacts to our fisheries, marine life, habitats and ecosystems, where is the concern from Save The Bay?
Since submitting testimony in 2021, on proposed construction in the critical habitat known as Coxes Ledge, Save the Bay has remained oddly silent. With cable lay preparation currently taking place in the bay, and with the federal government suspending the Vineyard Wind project after the now infamous July 13th blade failure, caused by a manufacturing issue that left Nantucket, Cape Cod and Rhode Island beaches littered with fiberglass and styrofoam, many are concerned.
The blade incident, coupled with sharks, whales and dolphins washing up on both Rhode Island and Massachusetts shores, has many asking – where is the concern of our “ocean watchdog group”?
The organization’s ‘strategy of silence’ when it comes to offshore wind is even more surprising when comparing the issues they do speak vocally about. This past May, Save the Bay joined forces with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office to rally the public against a small stone wall erected at a local country club.
With fanfare, Save the Bay and the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office held a seaside press conference where they invited local leaders and the public to share in the outrage. Save the Bay has dedicated an entire webpage to educating the public on this illegal golf course wall which was erected at Quidnessett Country Club .
They partnered again with the Rhode Island Attorney General’s office in its attempt to change the structure of the RI Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC). In a May 22nd Press Release from the Attorney General’s office, Topher Hamblett, Executive Director of Save The Bay said, “Narragansett Bay is the heart of Rhode Island,” he continued, “Important decisions impacting our coastal resources should not be left in the hands of a council of volunteer political appointees.
No one person, nor the council as an entity, is accountable for bad decisions and overriding expert staff recommendations.” This comment is especially interesting when you consider that Sandra Thornton Whitehouse, wife of our most vocal environmentalist, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, chaired this board for over four years. Save The Bay has added a page for legislative activism, against CRMC, to its website.
Save The Bay and the RI Attorney General’s office partnered again with efforts to take on metal recyclers issuing a RI Recycled Metals Press Statement stating, “For over a decade, Rhode Island Recycled Metals has shown a blatant disregard for environmental laws that protect our right to clean air and water.”
This is important work but these actions only highlight the organizations silence on the recycling needs of Off Shore Wind materials. Thousand’s of steel monopolies, weighing in at 2,000 tons a tube, are being hammered 200 ft deep into our seabeds, covering an area larger than the entire State of Rhode Island.
There has also been no concern raised over turbine blades themselves. These blades are not recyclable nor are they biodegradable. They are made up of a composite of very fine strands of plastic and glass, which is extremely difficult to process at the point of recycling. According to Cleanpower.org, “The blades are made of composite materials (e.g., Fiber-Reinforced Plastics, mostly fiberglass and carbon fiber) and pose a more significant recycling challenge to the wind industry and the composite materials sector. As Fiber-Reinforced Plastics (FRPs) are complex to recycle, the majority of rotor blades are currently going to either landfills or incineration facilities.”
In its 2022 fact sheet, Solid Waste Management officials reminds us that, “ most wind turbine blades are landfilled when decommissioned because as noted above, the materials used to manufacture wind turbine blades render them difficult to recycle or repurpose.”
They did however hold a press conference a few weeks ago with Governor Dan McKee pushing for a $53 million dollar Green Bond that will be on the ballot this November. This is in addition to the $50 million dollar Green Bond voted on two years ago in 2022. A major chunk of these new bonds are for Offshore wind cable infrastructure where the cables come ashore.
From what we can gather, the most significant shift in Save The Bays’ operational actions, going from ocean watchdog to State policy lapdog, align with the 2019 expansion of the organization’s advocacy wing. In April of 2019, Save The Bay hired Jed Thorpe as their first ever Advocacy Coordinator. For the last five months he has served as the organization’s new Director of Advocacy.
In discussing his work with the organization Mr. Thorpe explains, “I’ve always followed the theory that there are two forms of power in politics: money and people.” “Ultimately, Save The Bay’s political strength comes from the people who support our work and our policy proposals. My role will be to translate our existing “people power” into “political power.” He continues, “I see a huge amount of latent political power out there that can be thoughtfully and strategically mobilized to advance our agenda to protect and improve Narragansett Bay. I love working with and empowering people and helping them engage in the political process. Many folks think “politics” is a dirty word, but politics is simply the process of deciding who gets what, when and how.”
In response to our questions about why Save The Bay has not made OffShore Wind concerns a priority Mr. Thorpe responded, “So, it’s not that we don’t think offshore wind is a legitimate concern. But, most of the activity is well outside of the Bay.” But, offshore wind electromagnetic cable lay is currently happening in the heart of Narragansett Bay through November 6, 2025.
With cable routes being dredged up the bay, the unprecedented number of marine life strandings we have seen and the Nantucket turbine debris still washing up, the lack of public concern for our bay and adjacent waters is surprising.
“We hold state and federal agencies accountable for enforcing the laws that protect Narragansett Bay. We are the citizens’ watchdog—and the eyes, ears and voice—for Narragansett Bay.” – Jed Thopre, Director of Advocacy Save The Bay
With politics, Orsted money and energy market agendas infusing environmental organizations up and down the East Coast, is it a coincidence that they are remaining silent about the adverse impacts we are seeing? Does the ‘strategy of silence’ come from the top? Is the Board of Trustees aware of its fiduciary responsibility to the organization and of their charge to ensure the organizations actions align with their stated mission?
The people of Rhode Island have lost their seat at the table
Save The Bay was founded on the community’s desire to protect our most precious resource — Narragansett Bay (and adjacent waters). While much remains in question, the organization that once spoke for the people of Rhode Island seems to have abandoned its grass root community in favor of political action and agendas.
With its mission in question and its priorities now laser focused on agenda driven, government political action work — does Save The Bay RI deserve to hold its title as the state’s leading environmental watchdog any longer?
The World Bank is the largest climate funding multinational blob on Earth, and the world is about to end, the oceans are about to boil, but no one at the World Bank can explain where billions of dollars worth of the Earth saving funds have ended up. It’s almost as if no one there gives a toss about the climate. Indeed, if the World Bank was a giant parasitic squid feeding off the taxpayers of the West, it might look just like this.
The World Bank — Who We Are. As they say — we’re “Accountable to ourselves”.
The World Bank is the largest climate funding multinational blob on Earth, and the world is about to end, the oceans are about to boil, but no one at the World Bank can explain where billions of dollars worth of the Earth saving funds have ended up. It’s almost as if no one there gives a toss about the climate. Indeed, if the World Bank was a giant parasitic squid feeding off the taxpayers of the West, it might look just like this.
A new Oxfam report shows that over six years, $24,000 million dollars (at least) has probably gone missing off the balance sheets, but it could be as much as $41 billion. Essentially, the World Bank budgeted to spend a lot of money, but no one bothered to track whether that money was spent, whether the budget blew out, or whether it never happened and the team went surfing in Costa Rica. Imagine if we could do our taxes this way? Indeed, it’s a bit rich to say the money was “missing off balance sheets” because apparently there weren’t any balance sheets, not for expenditures.
Oxfam can only guess at the missing sums because they investigated other World Bank projects and found the final cost differed from the planned cost by between 26 to 43%. So they used that to come up with a ballpark figure of the size of the missing millions. It’s that bad. We can’t even say how much is missing. One insider told the New York Post, “it could be twice or ten times more”.
The supranational unaccountable entities like the World Bank, the UN, are surely the great attractor of global freeloaders. Like a supermagnet for people who like spending other people’s money:
Bungling World Bank bureaucrats lost track of at least $24 billion bankrolling the battle against climate change, according to a bombshell report by a left-leaning charity group.
An investigation by Oxfam revealed “poor record-keeping practices” by the DC-based international lender that resulted in anywhere between $24 billion and $41 billion in misplaced funds.
The agency’s audit showed “a lack of traceable spending” over the past seven years — partly because of an oddball accounting practice in which the bank accounts for its climate financing at the time of a project’s approval rather than at the time of project completion,…
In the report: Climate Finance Unchecked Oxfam discovered that it was extremely difficult to get simple answers:
“We had to sift through layers of complex and incomplete reports, and even then, the data was full of gaps and inconsistencies. The fact that this information is so hard to access and understand is alarming —it shouldn’t take a team of professional researchers to figure out how billions of dollars meant for climate action are being spent.
This could all be sorted out in five minutes. All it would take is for our governments to say “No more money for the World Bank until it sorts out reporting”, and next thing you know the World Bank would be filling out tax returns. But the odds of this happening are like an asteroid strike — unless Donald Trump wins the US election (above the margin of cheating). Mere mortal politicians who ask hard questions, not only risk their post-political Blob career with the UN-WEF-World-Bank-IMF-FAO-WHO-IAEA-or-OECD, they might feel the force of a World Bank report telling their citizens how they mismanaged their own economy, and who wants that?
The Oxfam writers, bless them, are slightly baffled. With the world in dire straits (as they see it) they can’t figure out why the World Bank is not treating every dollar like a diamond.
…the sums needed are vast and growing: According to the UN’s Adaptation Gap Report 2023, the amount needed for adaptation finance alone stands at between US$215 billion and US$387 billion a year.
There is so much potential. If the World Bank got what it asked for, and spent 90% in an honest way, there would still be $30 billion dollars left to throw parties. But if no one is tracking any of it, why not think big?
“This is the wild, wild west of finance,” said Mark Joven, Philippines Department of Finance undersecretary, who represents the country at U.N. climate talks. “Essentially, whatever they call climate finance is climate finance.”
“You cannot really follow the money, track the money, track the impact,” said Romain Weikmans, a senior research fellow specializing in climate finance at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
The Globalist Blob not just The Promised Land for political grifters, on a practical basis, the more they can siphon from the people towards the blob — the more friends they make in the international blob-glitterati, and the better chance they have of being offered the next great blob job offer.
Medium level domestic bureaucrats are surely looking to the land of milk and honey, which is where taxpayer funds escape the event horizon of audits and elections. Only there, can the parasites do whatever they want with other people’s money.
If there was an award for worst fact check of the year, the recent attempt by the French state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) to smear the Daily Sceptic would be the clear favourite to win. Taking issue with our report of a recent paper published by Nature that found no “surge” in global temperatures since 1970, the AFP author Manon Jacob branded the article “misleading” purely on the basis of a random selection of what other commentators had written on social media. The so-called fact check is so bad it could well be used in future journalism schools as an example of how not to take a poke at well-sourced material, just because you don’t like what is written.
If there was an award for worst fact check of the year, the recent attempt by the French state-owned Agence France-Presse (AFP) to smear the Daily Sceptic would be the clear favourite to win. Taking issue with our report of a recent paper published by Nature that found no “surge” in global temperatures since 1970, the AFP author Manon Jacob branded the article “misleading” purely on the basis of a random selection of what other commentators had written on social media. The so-called fact check is so bad it could well be used in future journalism schools as an example of how not to take a poke at well-sourced material, just because you don’t like what is written.
Lesson one might look at how Jacob and his state paymasters start their mission in bold type with the following:
A 2024 research paper in the journal Nature found no statistically detectable surge in the global warming rate since the 1970s, but social media posts claiming this is evidence climate change is not real are false. The data in this study and numerous others confirms a steady increase in surface temperature during this period, according to its authors and independent scientists.
There is no attempt made to dispute what was written in the Daily Sceptic, just the immediate erection of a strawman to knock down. In Jacob’s world, if the Daily Sceptic reported that man had landed on the moon, AFP would call it “misleading” because some conspiracy berk said it was filmed in the backlot at Universal Studios.
It gets worse. The article’s heading reads: ‘Scientists found “no change” in global warming rate?’ Note the question mark, a punctuation that is absent in the heading of the Nature paper that states: “A recent surge in global warming is not detectable yet.”
Halfway through the article a large red cross is placed across the promoting tweet sent by Daily Sceptic Editor-in-Chief Toby Young that read:
A sensational paper in top science journal Nature has found “no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s”, blowing holes in alarmist claims that global temperatures are surging, says Chris Morrison.
What is the problem here, it might be asked. The first part of the tweet is factually correct as evidenced by the paper itself, while the comment that follows is justified given the ubiquitous claims by alarmists that the recent temperature spike was evidence of accelerated warming. What might have upset AFP is that the message was retweeted almost 3,000 times, helped along by a push from Dr. Jordan Peterson and his four million-plus followers. The article was also reposted in a number of journals including the popular science site Watts Up With That?
Why did the author start by placing a question mark against “no change in global warming rate”? It suggests a lack of understanding of the difference between a consistent statistical rise in temperature since 1970 (despite earlier falls and two significant pauses) and a possible increase or “surge” in the recent rate of warming. The study’s warming trends were said to be misrepresented “to promote climate denial”. What follows later in the AFP hitjob is simply pure gibberish: “But using the article’s conclusions to claim there has been no additional warming since the 1970s is highly misleading, scientists say, noting that the models used in the study instead detect a consistent increase over time.” Why should the first part of this statement of “no additional warming” – a fact published in the Nature paper – be at odds with a “consistent increase” in temperatures over time?
The lack of “additional warming”, however misleading AFP finds it, was crucial to the findings of the paper and the Daily Sceptic was careful to accurately report what was written. Jacob and AFP have simply fallen into the trap of mixing up what others have said with what the Daily Sceptic clearly and fairly reported. The scientists said there was “limited evidence” for a warming surge. “In most surface temperature time series, no change in the warming rate beyond the 1970s is detected despite the breaking record temperatures observed in 2023.” The scientists said it was important to consider random noise caused by natural variation when investigating the recent pauses in temperature and the more recent “alleged warming acceleration”. I noted that the paper was an excellent piece of climate science work since it took a long statistical view and challenged the two-a-penny clickbait alarmists looking for a headline on the BBC. And, it would seem, at the French state’s news agency. The Daily Sceptic has been subjected to a number of nuisance fact checks from this quarter, as has Toby Young who is said to have “spread myths debunked by AFP in the past”. Certainly, AFP is on its game when it comes to smearing and cancelling opinions that detract from the global rollout of the Net Zero fantasy.
The AFP climate desk is run by Marlowe Hood, the self-styled “Herald of the Anthropocene”. As regular readers will recall, this climate champion was recently given €100,000 by the foundation of a large Spanish bank heavily involved in funding green projects. He was one of a gang of activists including Graham Readfearn of the Guardian and Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann that secured the retraction in Springer Nature of an inconvenient paper written by a number of eminent Italian physicists. Led by Professor Gianluca Alimonti, it observed that the available data did not support a climate emergency. Hood claimed the data, which came mostly from IPCC sources, were “grossly manipulated” and “fundamentally flawed”. The paper was initially brought to wide social attention by the Daily Sceptic and Marlowe Hood started the cancellation ball rolling by writing – yes, you guessed it – an AFP fact check.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
The archipelago nation of Indonesia represents just 1% of Earth’s land area, but it has set the stage for global geopolitics surrounding fossil fuels and climate policies.
Jakarta, Indonesia skyline. Licensed from 123rf.com
The archipelago nation of Indonesia represents just 1% of Earth’s land area, but it has set the stage for global geopolitics surrounding fossil fuels and climate policies.
As a part of climate negotiations between G-7 nations, Indonesia was expected to be the first among developing countries to announce early closures of coal plants.
In the spotlight is the 660-megawatt Cirebon-1 plant in West Java province, which had been scheduled to shut down by 2035. However, it is understood that Jakarta will not follow that timeline but rather continue to operate the plant to its originally projected end of life in 2042. A stumbling block to the early closure is a price tag of more than $1 billion to replace the coal plant with so-called renewable energy.
In reaffirming its commitment to the unrestricted use of coal, Indonesia makes a bold and sensible decision to put energy security and economic priorities ahead of international climate politics. The move sets up Indonesia as a model for other developing countries to defy the western agenda to reduce emissions in favor of their own self-interest.
Coal in Indonesia
For developing nations like Indonesia, the path to prosperity is paved with affordable energy. Coal, abundant and cheap, has long been the fuel of choice for powering economic growth. The country sits atop vast coal reserves, estimated at 37 billion metric tons, which are primarily located in Sumatra and Kalimantan.
Jakarta has approved a coal production quota of 922 million metric tons for 2024, a significant increase from previous years. This move has sparked international criticism, but it’s a calculated step to ensure energy affordability.
Coal remains the backbone of Indonesia’s energy sector, accounting for over 60% of its electricity generation. Also, Indonesia relies on coal-fueled smelters for most of its nickel production.
Producing about half of the world’s nickel, Indonesia is the top producer of the metal, which is needed to make batteries that run electric vehicles and energy storage devices.
Economic Case for Fossil Fuels
In the late 1990s, nearly 50% of Indonesia’s population lived in poverty. Today, that number is closer to 10%, thanks to unabated use of coal during the past two decades. At 70%, Indonesia manages to maintain one of the highest employment rates among the G20 countries.
“Despite challenges in 2023, Indonesia has demonstrated resilience to global shocks and an ever more diversified economic base is expected to mitigate adverse impacts,” says a spokesman for financial services company PwC.
Much of this success is due to a stable and reliable energy supply of coal, oil, and natural gas for electricity and industries. Coal and petroleum, along with nickel and ferroalloys, are among Indonesia’s top exports.
Poverty, though declining, remains a pressing issue, with over 26 million Indonesians classified as poor. Rapid industrialization and economic growth are essential for improving living standards and creating opportunities for millions.
Western Hypocrisy
Many western leaders lecturing Indonesia on the evils of coal had their own economies built with that very fuel and continue to rely on oil and gas.
The United States, for instance, underwent an energy revolution through fracking, which unlocked vast reserves of natural gas and oil. In 2023, U.S. was the number one oil producer in the world.
Similarly, Norway, often lauded for its commitment to “sustainability,” continues to issue oil drilling permits in the North Sea. If Norway, a country with a superior economy and high standard of living, can still prioritize its economic self-interest by extracting its oil, why should Indonesia be criticized for utilizing its coal reserves?
The $1.4 trillion Indonesian economy is in no mood to compromise its future or the continuing upward trend in economic growth. Count on Jakarta to exploit its natural resources well into the future.
This commentary was first published at California Globe on October 14, 2024 and is reposted with permission.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition in Arlington Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University (both in the U.K.), and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
The fight against climate change is increasingly riddled with lawmakers’ feel-good attempts to save the planet by imposing top-down regulations that do nothing in the way of meaningfully reducing global temperatures or cutting pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a familiar habit of harming consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or making them more expensive.
The fight against climate change is increasingly riddled with lawmakers’ feel-good attempts to save the planet by imposing top-down regulations that do nothing in the way of meaningfully reducing global temperatures or cutting pollution. However, these “feel-good” regulations have a familiar habit of harming consumers by eliminating popular goods and services or making them more expensive.
The latest example of such a regulation comes courtesy of California, where lawmakers recently passed a second ban on plastic grocery bags after the first attempt ended in failure. The first ban, SB 270—which took effect in 2014—prohibited grocery stores from distributing single-use plastic bags at checkout. It was designed to reduce plastic waste and encourage consumers to use reusable bags.
However, a study published by the California consumer advocacy organization CALPIRG recently found that the ban may have inadvertently led to a 47% jump in plastic bag waste between 2014 and 2022 due to consumers’ tendency to throw away thicker reusable plastic bags after a single use. That means that rather than reduce plastic waste, SB 270 created more of it, all the while charging consumers 10 cents per reusable bag. Plastic bag bans in other states have produced similar results, such as in New Jersey where plastic consumption was found to have tripled after the ban took effect.
While California policymakers now hope to close this apparent loophole by prohibiting grocery stores from selling thicker plastic bags and requiring them to offer only recycled paper bags at checkout, it is not difficult to envision there being additional unintended consequences. Policymakers are trying to control consumers’ subjective behavior and preferences—a strategy that rarely, if ever, works.
Other noteworthy examples of environmental regulatory failures include plastic straw bans. Motivated by cliché slogans like “The Last Plastic Straw Campaign,” which rely on viral turtle videos to drum up public support, policymakers have passed bans on plastic straws in states and cities across the country. Supporters argue such bans reduce plastic waste—some of which makes its way into rivers and landfills—while encouraging consumers to use reusable or paper straws. However, the success of such bans has been questionable at best, as plastic straws make up a negligible amount of plastic waste. Moreover, supposed green alternatives like paper straws have been found to pose their own environmental challenges, such as being comprised of greater amounts of water-resistant forever chemicals that are slow to biodegrade.
Bans on gas appliances also seem to be a fan favorite of policymakers who see natural gas and fossil fuel hook-ups as antithetical to a carbon-free future. Cities like Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Francisco have each recently implemented such bans in new buildings, as has the state of New York. While policymakers say such bans are needed to help curb greenhouse gas emissions, they require residents to make unnecessary sacrifices, such as using less popular appliances like gas stoves that are slower to heat up, provide less precise temperature control, and often mean higher monthly bills.
It is also worth noting that eliminating gas appliances has little impact on reducing carbon emissions if the city or state derives its power from oil or natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 60% of U.S. electricity generation still comes from fossil fuels, and no state relies entirely on renewable energy. Likewise, most large population centers rely on many different forms of energy to meet their needs. Bans on gas appliances, straws, and plastic bags will not change consumer preferences, but they will deprive them of choice.
Countless other feel-good attempts at environmental regulation by policymakers intent on fighting climate change exist and many exact a similar toll on consumers, whether they be water-saving faucet requirements that reduce flow rates, bans on incandescent light bulbs, or restrictions on the type of yard a homeowner can have. While not all such regulations are bad or overly burdensome, they do quickly add up and have the overall accumulative effect of limiting people’s freedom to decide what good or service works best for them. While some Americans may view these limits as a necessary sacrifice to help save the planet, chances are most would not feel that way if they learned few meaningfully move the needle on halting climate change or reducing waste.
Nate Scherer is a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit us at www.TheAmericanConsumer.Org or follow us on X @ConsumerPal
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
You don’t have to guess what the BBC’s position is on this!!
A local authority’s decision to postpone its net zero targets have been slammed as “concerning” by climate campaigners and critics.
South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) has revised its deadline to become carbon neutral from 2025 to 2030 for the council, and 2030 to 2045 for the district as a whole.
The authority said it had “led by example” when it came to cutting carbon emissions.
But critics said the authority was “not dealing with the climate emergency” and “breaking promises”.
Conservative councillor Ian Snowdon said: “They’ve known for a very long time that they’re missing these targets – there’s many officer reports stating that they’re nowhere near and yet they leave it to just a few days before the date to suddenly put the targets back five and 15 years.
“It seems the only time they ever take the climate emergency seriously is at election times.”
The authority highlighted the slowing of technological development in the carbon emission sector as a reason for the delay to the “highly ambitious targets”.
Council leader David Rouane said: “We set targets which were really challenging back in 2019 in order to change behaviour.
“We have led by example – we’ve cut our emissions as a council quite significantly.
“It’s about the district as a whole – we’re one business in the district and we’re doing our bit, but what matters is what happens within the district as a whole.”
Dr Sue Roberts, who drew up the original targets while she was the council’s climate lead, said it was the postponement of the district wide target that was “most concerning”.
“It’s the people, it’s the whole area that we need to get down to zero carbon,” the former green party councillor added.
The authority stressed that the revised targets “better align” with other councils across Oxfordshire, and the UK as a whole.
So critics say the authority was “not dealing with the climate emergency” . What a joke! Do these critics, which basically means the BBC, honestly think a bit of virtue signalling by this district council will change the world’s weather?
Remember that this net zero target was just for the council itself, not the whole of South Oxfordshire.
Councils up and down the country have set these silly targets. And one by one they will quickly realise that they are unachievable, when the electricity they use is still being supplied from fossil fuels, when the EVs they are buying use batteries made using coal power in China, and when their silly solar panels depend on diesel powered quarrying machinery.
And that is before we even get into the food in their canteens, clothes they wear, computers in their offices and all of the other trappings of a modern society.
Over 100 years (1901-2015) of net cooling is also evident across the entire US according to 1,407 long-term temperature stations (Partridge et al., 2018).
You must be logged in to post a comment.