Greens Detest ‘Little Guys’ Who Get in Their Way

Environmentalists insist they love “little guys.” At least in the abstract, until those folks get in the way, raise inconvenient questions, or try to block “renewable energy” projects intended to “save the planet” from “manmade climate cataclysms.”

From Watts Up With That?

Rural and coastal little guys delay and block massive ‘green’ energy projects

Paul Driessen

Environmentalists insist they love “little guys.” At least in the abstract, until those folks get in the way, raise inconvenient questions, or try to block “renewable energy” projects intended to “save the planet” from “manmade climate cataclysms.”

Then the little folks learn the environmentalists are really working with (and for) Big Wind, Big Solar, Big Utilities, Big Finance, powerful politicians and crony bureaucrats – the Climate Industrial Complex. Stand in its way, and farm families, small rural communities and even Native American groups can face protracted, expensive battles. But they often emerge victorious.

Energy analyst and journalist Robert Bryce reports that these little guys have rejected or restricted 735 US wind and solar projects since 2015, including 58 solar and 35 wind proposals so far this year. Transmission line, grid-scale battery and other plans also face growing resistance.

Rural Americas don’t want these huge installations destroying traditional ways of life, hurting property values, raising electricity rates, wrecking vital croplands and habitats, ruining scenic vistas, killing birds, bats and other wildlife – and creating serious fire and toxic gas risks from lithium-ion electricity storage batteries.

They don’t want their countryside dotted with huge landfills, piled high with billions of tons of broken, storm-destroyed and obsolete solar panels, wind turbine blades and other renewables trash.

The number and scale of many proposed projects is daunting – and the Complex’s dream of “transitioning” the entire United States from fossil fuels to an all-electric energy, transportation and industrial system would require vastly more.

Before being scaled back in a failed effort to reduce local and state opposition, the Lava Ridge Wind Project would have installed 400 huge turbines on some 200,000 acres of federal land in Idaho. That’s 310 square miles; 5.5 times Washington, DC. Most of its output would go to California, which already imports nearly one-third of its electricity.

The Koshkonong solar project near Christiana, WI would cover 6,400 acres (10 sq mi) and put a 667-MWh battery storage system near a local elementary school.

The Biden-Harris plan for 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy translates into 2,500 12-megawatt turbines rising 850 feet above the waves. But all those turbines wouldn’t provide enough electricity (31,541 MW) to power New York State on a hot summer day, if the wind is blowing.

The state’s plan to spend $2 billion for 24,000 MWh of backup batteries for windless/sunless days would provide enough electricity to run the state for barely 45 minutes! Sufficient batteries would cost trillions.

Each offshore blade is 350 feet long and 140,000 pounds; 2,5000 turbines would mean almost 500 miles of blades weighing 1,050,000,000 pounds! Imagine cleanup and landfill costs after a major hurricane.

And yet a 2020 Princeton University report called for massively expanding US wind and solar capacity, to fight climate change and rebuild America.

However, as Mr. Bryce points out, those plans would require solar projects blanketing an area the size of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut combined – plus wind installations sprawling across lands equal to Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee!

That’s without factoring in wind and solar power needed to charge grid-scale backup batteries to store enough electricity to power America for even a day or week of windless, sunless days.

Other projects are equally enormous, expensive and fanciful.

Summit Carbon Solutions wants to build a pipeline to carry carbon dioxide from 57 ethanol plants in five states – and inject the CO2 into geologic formations beneath North Dakota. Summit can provide no guarantees that the pressurized gas will stay in the ground, and not erupt suddenly and violently, killing wildlife and people by rapidly replacing breathable air – as a natural CO2 reservoir did at Cameroon’s Lake Nyos in 1986.

The cumulative impacts of all these wind, solar, battery, transmission line and other projects would be incalculable – on lands, wildlife, families, budgets and human health.

Adding to the cost, construction and raw material requirements, home, neighborhood and regional grids would have to be expanded and upgraded to handle the ballooning electricity demands, and the surges and plummets associated with unpredictable, weather-dependent wind and solar power.  

All this is irrelevant to Climate Industrial Complex members, who want to virtue-signal and  extol the “pivotal role” they are playing in driving America’s “renewable energy transformation,” meeting arbitrary greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and preventing “climate catastrophes.”

Property rights advocate Tom DeWeese says concerned citizens can fight back by asking tough questions about these policies and projects. For example:

* What benefits has our community gotten from the massive solar and wind farms we already have? From the taxpayer subsidies and rate hikes we already have to pay? What benefits will we receive from the huge new projects you are promoting now?

* Why are you trying to end local land use controls, use eminent domain to take our property, and destroy small local and minority businesses to build these enormous projects?

* How will ruining our wild and agricultural areas, killing wildlife and reducing our living standards reduce global greenhouse and “save the planet,” if China and India alone emit 38% of the world’s greenhouse gases (versus 11% by the USA) and are building new coal-fired generating plants every week?

Proud, principled, vocal resistance is essential, if citizens are to defend their jobs, lands, health, living standards and freedoms.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environmental, climate and human rights issues.

This article originally appeared in the Washington Times online (10/22/24) and print (10/23/24) editions.

https://www.WashingtonTimes.com/news/2024/oct/22/environmentalists-detest-little-guys-who-get-in-th

Robust Beach Ridge Evidence Indicates Mid Holocene Sea Levels Were 1-5 Meters Higher Than Today

Three new studies use evidence from elevated beach ridges to assess sea levels were 3-5 m higher than today near Thailand, 1-1.5 m higher near Australia, 2-5 m higher along the North Sea just a few millennia ago.

From NoTrickZone

By Kenneth Richard

Three new studies use evidence from elevated beach ridges to assess sea levels were 3-5 m higher than today near Thailand, 1-1.5 m higher near Australia, 2-5 m higher along the North Sea just a few millennia ago.

The higher sea levels in the tropical regions (Australia, Gulf of Thailand) were “primarily driven by eustatic processes,” not a result of vertical land motions.

This means the Mid to Late Holocene highstands were mostly a consequence of the larger volume of water in ocean basins at that time relative to today, when there is more water locked up on land as ice.

Terry et al., 2024 (Gulf of Thailand)

“At an elevation of 3.3–5.3 m above modern sea level, the sequence is interpreted to represent a Holocene raised beach. The unlithified sediments comprise rounded quartz and mylonite pebbles and cobbles, oriented predominantly NE–SW, supported by fossiliferous sands that are rich in marine shells, coral fragments and occasional terrestrial gastropods. The juxtaposition of the marine and non-marine gastropoda of contemporaneous ages mC14 and OSL age-dating of shell material and mineral sands suggest the raised (storm) beach formed between 3.5 and 4.0 ka BP, i.e. ∼ 2.5–3.0 ka after the MHH peak, at a height of ∼ 1.3–3.3 m above the local RSL position at that time (according to glacial isostatic adjustment modelling). Given the otherwise paucity of data from the upper GoT, the Ko Khang Khao raised beach provides nakes a compelling story for a coastal storm deposit, thrown up either by a winter monsoon storm, or by a palaeotyphoon that managed to penetrate the upper Gulf. Overlapping results of ew information that expands our current understanding of geographical variations in RSL across Southeast Asia during the Late Holocene.”

 Image Source: Terry et al., 2024

Kennedy et al., 2024 (Australia)

“Holocene sea-level in Victoria is considered to be primarily driven by eustatic processes and is most likely similar to that of eastern Australia broadly (Bryant, 1992; Kennedy et al., 2020b; Lewis et al., 2013). A maximum elevation during the Holocene occurred at around +1.0–1.5 m 6000–6500 calibrated years ago (cal BP) has been suggested based on dating of raised notches (Cape Liptrap; Baker et al., 2001; Gardner et al., 2009) and estuarine sediments (Anglesea; Kennedy et al., 2021) in southern Victoria  … As the estuary closely tracked sea level during the mid-Holocene it can therefore be used to provide further indication on the spatial extent of the maximum sea level elevation recorded elsewhere in eastern Australia (Lewis et al., 2013) and on the other side of the Tasman Sea (Clement et al., 2016; Kennedy, 2008; Kennedy et al., 2022) during this period. Evidence for a mid-Holocene sea level highstand along the open coast of Victoria, southern Australia, has generally been scant. Fixed biological indicators at Cape Liptrap (165 km east-south-east) suggest a higher sea level of 1.5 m at around 5.5–5.0 ka (Gardner et al., 2009; Haworth et al., 2002), while at Anglesea elevated estuarine shells at +1.14 m date at 6704–6381 cal BP (Kennedy et al., 2021; Figure 9). As the average elevation of the infilled part of the estuary is +2.34 ± 0.51 m and composed of estuarine sediments this further suggests deposition during a period of higher sea level. Combined with the shallowest age (1 m from the surface, +1.021 m above MSL) within Aireys/Painkalac of 6930–6440 year cal BP being very similar to that of Anglesea provides further evidence that a period of higher sea level during the mid-Holocene occurs along the south east coast of Australia.”

Image Source: Kennedy et al., 2024

Freiesleben et al., 2024 (North Sea)

“The postglacial sea-level history in the Limfjord area is based on radiocarbon dating of terrestrial-to-marine transitions in sediment cores, and mollusc shells in raised marine deposits showing a rapid sea-level rise in the Early Holocene (Petersen 1979; Bennike et al. 2019; Jessen et al. 2019) followed by a Middle Holocene peak in sea level 2–5 m higher than present as documented by the raised beach ridges and Littorina shorelines (Mertz 1924).”

Image Source: Freiesleben et al., 2024

Grid Companies Bracing For Power Cuts

The Grid companies now seem to be getting serious about the risk of blackouts this winter.

By Paul Homewood

 The Grid companies now seem to be getting serious about the risk of blackouts this winter.

I got this today:

To simply use “bad weather” as an excuse is just silly. We have bad weather every year, and we often experience blackouts for short periods for all sorts of reasons.

They are an annoyance but nothing more. The telly goes off along with the computer. But the worst thing is next door’s alarm going off!

But we don’t get these well coordinated warnings.

But clearly these minor events are not what Northern Powergrid have in mind. Instead it appears they are worried about major outages when we simply don’t have enough power to go round.

I wonder why?

First warming, then climate, now plastics — energy company lawfare

“Exxon Knew!” The battle cry has inflamed and inspired climate activists for decades. Since the 1970s, they allege, Exxon Knew that human-caused climate change is “real” – but lied about it, claimed there wasn’t a “crisis,” and kept marketing its “planet-killing” fuels and petrochemical feed stocks.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

“Exxon Knew!” The battle cry has inflamed and inspired climate activists for decades. Since the 1970s, they allege, Exxon Knew that human-caused climate change is “real” – but lied about it, claimed there wasn’t a “crisis,” and kept marketing its “planet-killing” fuels and petrochemical feed stocks.

Now activists say Exxon Knew for years that very little plastic waste is actually recycled. The oil giant is deceiving regulators and consumers with claims that all plastics are recyclable and its “advanced recycling” processes keep enormous amounts of plastics out of landfills.

ExxonMobil “campaign of deception” demands a lawsuit, says California Attorney General Rob Bonta. “Exxon Knew” that 95% of plastics in recycling bins are incinerated, get tossed onto roadways, or end up in landfills and oceans.

“Exxon knew” it was peddling lies when it promoted recycling as a “cure-all for plastic waste” – because eradicating all plastic use and disposal is impossible and many plastics can’t be recycled.

This is Mr. Bonta’s latest attack on fossil fuels. He wants a jury trial, to help ensure big lawfare payouts. But he’s ignoring inconvenient realities and engaging in rampant deceptions of his own.

Plastics are ubiquitous: from eyeglass frames and lenses, to television, computer and cell phone housings, wind turbine blades and nacelles, solar panel frames, medical equipment, devices and garments, car and airplane interiors, backpacks, skis, football helmets, shoes, grocery bags and infinitely more. Plastic packaging preserves and protects products that involve long, expensive, resource-intensive processes to grow or manufacture; it helps keep foods from spoiling or becoming bacteria-infested.

Plastics are cheap to produce, can be molded into infinite shapes and sizes, are corrosion-resistant, and don’t break easily (imagine shampoo and body wash in glass bottles). They’re lighter than glass and even paper alternatives, meaning more can be packed on trucks and transported using less fuel. In many cases, there are no viable alternatives.

Plastics are essential for our living standards, safety and modern world.

But what happens when they break, wear out or get tossed? For years they were thrown out with other trash. But environmentalists, politicians and consumers increasingly demanded that cans, glass and other throwaways be recycled. For many of us, recycling became a habit.

Recycling turns low-value plastic garbage into valuable materials: window frames, boards for siding decks and fences, pipes to replace copper tubing that thieves steal, toys and toothbrushes, plates and utensils, diapers and clothing, carpeting and lawn furniture, soccer fields, bottles, cabinets, and  more.

Neither ExxonMobil nor any other company promoted recycling as a magic solution or cure-all. It’s more expensive than virgin plastic, especially when transportation and sorting costs are factored in. Smaller items can clog sorting screens. Colored plastics have fewer recycling options than clear or white ones.

Most important, many types of plastics have little post-use demand or simply cannot be recycled. Others are integrated with electrical circuitry (motherboards and keyboards) or with paper or metal (laminates for food containers), making it impossible to separate and recycle them.

Thermoplastics can be heated, melted and reshaped or re-extruded into new products. These are the familiar #1 (PET) soda and water bottles, #2 (HDPE) milk and detergent containers, many #4 (LDPE) grocery bags and squeezable bottles, and some #5 (PP) yogurt and butter containers.

Thermoset plastics contain polymers that form irreversible chemical bonds that make strong products that cannot be remelted: vulcanized rubber for tires, Bakelite kitchenware, jewelry and circuit boards, epoxy resins, Duroplast car bodies and toilet seats, polyurethane cushions, insulation and windshields, et cetera.

Styrofoam cups and egg cartons cannot be recycled without (rare) specialized equipment and processes.

Moreover, even thermoplastics can be recycled only 2-3 times, before their polymer chains get shortened to the point where quality and durability become so low that the products are unusable.

(Newspaper, magazines, copying paper and Kraft paper bags have the same degradation problem: 6-7 trips to the recycler, and the cellulose fibers are too shortened, damaged and degraded to be reused. Steel, aluminum and glass, by contrast, can generally be recycled endless times.)

All these complexities explain why only a small fraction of plastics are recycled. ExxonMobil recycling 60,000,00-80,000,000 pounds of plastics per year may seem minuscule, compared to 73,000,000 tons of annual US plastic waste. However, it’s equivalent to 430-570 offshore wind turbine blades (350 feet long; 140,000 pounds apiece) that only end up in Grand-Canyonesque landfills.

Plus, plastic wastes can also be converted into diesel, aviation and gasoline fuels, and even electricity.

An excellent solution is to turn plastics and most other garbage into electricity for our increasingly power-hungry society – especially as AI and data centers proliferate, and politicians mandate that we convert our gas stoves, ovens, furnaces and water heaters to electric models.

A municipal waste-to-energy (WTE) / resource recovery facility operated by Reworld/Covanta performs these wondrous conversions just a few miles from my home. Enormous quantities of normally landfilled, nonrecyclable home, business, industrial, government and agricultural waste are dumped into a receiving area, sorted for unacceptable materials (eg, rocks), mixed thoroughly and emptied into the combustion chamber, where everything is burned with natural gas at 2000 degrees F, until it’s totally combusted.

Process heat is converted to steam, to drive turbines that generate 80 megawatts of electricity, enough for about 52,000 homes. Since 1990, the plant’s electricity has replaced the equivalent of some 2,000,000 barrels of crude oil each year. Dust and odor are contained within the facility; water from the wastes is recovered, treated and used as coolant; and air and water pollutants are kept well below EPA standards.

Even plastic-and-metal e-wastes (computers, monitors, keyboards, printers, and AI and data center machines) and “clean, green” energy equipment like solar panels can be “recycled” this way.

Enough iron, steel, aluminum, copper and other metals are recovered from the resultant ash to build 20,000 automobiles annually. The process also melts and recovers glass – and even recovers metals from e-wastes, light bulb bases, paper clips, staples, and metal bottoms from cardboard juice containers.

By the time the entire process is over, only nontoxic ash is left – about 5% of the original bulk mass of trash – and it gets used in cement and other applications or sent to landfills.

It reminds me of the old stockyard claim: The only part of the pig that isn’t used is the squeal.

So I have a few questions for Mr. Bonta.

* If you banish oil and gas, where will plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals and other products come from?

* Which plastics and vital plastic products do you intend to eradicate? What will doctors, pharmacists, optometrists, computer and cell phone users, and other consumers do without them?

* Recognizing that California has closed most of its nuclear, coal and gas power plants; that its net-zero, all-electricity mandates will soon double the state’s electricity needs; and that the state already imports one third of its electricity from neighboring states – why aren’t you suing to fast-track WTE plants?

* Why aren’t you suing Governor Newsom, President Biden, VP Harris, your state legislature and yourself for fraud and misrepresentation about green energy that isn’t clean, green, renewable or sustainable?

It’s time to recognize that “progressive” policies, mandates and lawsuits impose enormous costs on taxpayers, consumers and our environment – while politicians feed citizens a steady diet of lies.

Claim: Australia has ALREADY Experienced 1.5C of Warming

Still waiting for the promised climate disaster.

Essay by Eric Worrall

Still waiting for the promised climate disaster.

Australia is already 1.5 degrees hotter

By Bianca Hall
October 31, 2024 — 12.01am

Australia’s average temperatures have risen by 1.5 degrees for the first time since records began, and the world is on track to overshoot the Paris Accord’s aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

That’s the latest sobering assessment offered by scientists and meteorologists from the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, who have mapped Australia’s changing climate for 14 years.

Their latest biennial State of the Climate report, released on Thursday, shows average temperatures continue to rise steadily, while the average number of extreme bushfire days have risen by as many as 25 days a year in parts of the country.

Two years ago, Australia’s temperatures had risen by an average 1.47 degrees since records began in 1910. This year, average temperatures in Australia have risen by 1.5 degrees, while global averaged temperatures have risen by 1.2 degrees since “reliable” records began in 1850.

…Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-is-already-1-5-degrees-hotter-20241029-p5kmb1.html

“Beginning” the records in 1910 conveniently misses what may have been the worst heatwave ever in recorded Australian history, the Federation Drought of 1895 – 1903. But despite claiming temperature records before 1910 are too unreliable to include in official records, government climate scientists are confident that more recent droughts are hotter.

435 people died in an 1896 heatwave — but scientists say the extreme heat events of today are still hotter

By Sophie Meixner and Daniel Nancarrow
Sat 21 Dec 2019

In the late 19th century, Australia was struck by a heatwave so intense that 435 people were killed and hundreds more were sent fleeing for their lives.

Key points:

  • Bourke, NSW, is recorded as hitting 48.9C three times in 1896, with a maximum temperature of 38C for over three weeks straight
  • But climate scientists say the methods used to record temperature in 1896 were flawed and heatwaves today are hotter
  • They say the high death toll in 1896 was due to the community being more vulnerable to heat events

The 1895-1896 heatwave during the Federation Drought holds the record as Australia’s deadliest heatwave, closely followed by 2009, which recorded at least 432 heat-related deaths.

The town of Bourke lost at least 40 people — 1.6 per cent of its population — during the 1896 event, while Sydney authorities reported hospitals at breaking point and pedestrians collapsing in the streets.

Newspaper reports describe temperatures in Bourke reaching 48.9 degrees Celsius on three occasions, and the maximum temperature remaining above 38C for 24 consecutive days.

As Australia endures a series of intense and record-breaking heatwaves this summer, the 1896 event is sometimes viewed as evidence that Australia has always experienced extraordinary heat, and that the effects of climate change are overblown.

But climate scientists say that is an oversimplification, and the heatwaves we experience today are significantly hotter than those in the past.

…

A Stevenson screen was not installed in Bourke until August 1908, meaning temperature readings from before that could be inflated by as much as 2C.

…Read more: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-21/1896-heatwave-killed-435-climate-scientists-cant-compare-today/11809998

The implication of the article above, that modern temperature recording is rigorous compared to the old days, ignores a lot of problems with modern temperature records. Australian climate scientist Jennifer Morohasy has fought a long running campaign to force the Aussie Bureau of Meteorology to admit they are less than perfect.

Whatever the truth about past heatwaves compared to the present, there are indications Australians are getting fed up with climate fear mongering. The greens suffered a major setback in the recent Queensland State Election.

The breaching of a 1.5C climate disaster limit which nobody notices is unlikely to add to the faltering credibility of climate doomsday pronouncements.

Valencia Floods Update

As the Sun’s map indicates, rainfall peaked at around 180mm for the three-day duration of the storm, though likely higher in the hills where reliable measurements are not available, either now or in the past. This would appear to be confirmed by figures of 200mm at Utiel and Turis.

Wikipedia make reference to the 1957 floods, widely regarded as some of the worst in history in Valencia.

Valencia’s ‘Great Flood of 57

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

As the waters recede, we need to put the Valencia floods into perspective.

According to Wikipedia:

Starting on 29 October 2024, a “gota fría (cold drop)” brought drastic flash flooding to southern and south-eastern Spain, primarily in the Valencia region. Chiva saw nearly 500 millimetres (20 in) of rainfall,[4] while Utiel and Turís each recorded totals of 200 mm (7.9 in), with other southeastern municipalities receiving 100 mm (3.9 in).[5] In Andalusia, the storm caused landslides[6][7] and damage to buildings, roads, bridges and agricultural land.[8][9][10]

On October 30, 2024, the 1973 New Turia Riverbed surged to capacity, sparing Valencia’s city proper but worsening the catastrophic flooding across towns and suburbs to the south due to a funnel effect.[13]

The South Plan [es], the new riverbed for the Turia built after it catastrophically flooded in 1957 prevented flooding in Valencia,[14] but it caused all municipalities to its south to flood, causing tens of deaths in towns like Paiporta.[13] Floods ended up affecting all population centers in Horta Sud, as well as most in Camp de Túria and in Requena-Utiel.[15][16]

The resulting floodwaters caused the deaths of at least 95 people,[1] including 92 in the province of Valencia,[17] two more in Castile-La Mancha[18] and one in Andalusia.[19][20] Dozens of others were also missing.[21] The flooding also caused significant damage to buildings and infrastructure, sweeping away roads and cars while also derailing a high-speed train carrying nearly 300 people, resulting in no injuries.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Spain_floods

As the Sun’s map indicates, rainfall peaked at around 180mm for the three-day duration of the storm, though likely higher in the hills where reliable measurements are not available, either now or in the past. This would appear to be confirmed by figures of 200mm at Utiel and Turis.

Wikipedia make reference to the 1957 floods, widely regarded as some of the worst in history in Valencia.

Photo of Valencia’s ‘Great Flood of 57’. Source: Wikipedia

Here is one account:

For most of the year the Turia was a dormant little stream which trickled along the sticky mudflats, which Valencia liked to call a river. Writing at the beginning of the nineteenth century, British writer Richard Ford mocked the Valencians for the false grandeur of their magnificent bridges and high river walls… all for a piffling little brook. What he didn’t know was that twice a year the river swelled with the autumn and spring rain or that every ten years or so it flooded the city. It was a supposedly normal Monday in 1957 in Valencia. On October 14th a flood came, which caused such devastation it was to be an historic turning point in the way the city developed. It helped shape what we know as Valencia today.

Valencians knew that you tended to get a bit of rain in these parts around October time but no one  could have imagined the scale of the tragedy which was about to befall them. On the Saturday, two days before the flood, was the festival of Pilar. There had been heavy rain and the scheduled bullfight had been cancelled. Sunday morning, however, had seen only a few showers catching people on their way to Mass. The afternoon had been dry, Levante’s match against Tetuán had gone ahead and people crowded into the city’s numerous cinemas. In a curious twist of fate, one of the most popular films that weekend was the disaster movie ‘Typhoon over Nagasaki’ at the ‘Olimpia’. They needn’t have bothered going to the pictures, it was all about to happen right in front of their eyes.

While people were turning in for the night, some of the heaviest rains ever seen had been falling further inland and some night owls marvelled at how the river had swollen. Not long after midnight, the first wave struck. At a rate of two thousand seven hundred cubic metres per second, water poured into the city. Within minutes, houses around Calle Alboraya and Calle Sagunto were letting in up to a metre of water. People scrabbled their way to upper floors, climbed trees and statues, the lights went out and the violent rush of water could be heard all over the city.

This first wave only affected people who lived in the vicinity of the river, especially along its North bank and nearer the sea at Malvarrosa and Nazaret. The ancient doors of the Monasterio de la Trinidad were wrenched off by the force of the water. Things calmed down at around 4 a.m. During that morning, people from the centre (as yet unaffected) ventured out to see the fast-flowing water and the eerie sight of drowned cows, floating down to the sea from a cattle farm further upstream. The Pont de Fusta (or wooden bridge) in front of the Estación del Puente de Madera had been completely washed away. Little did they know the worst was yet to come.

At around two in the afternoon, a second wave crashed in. It was bigger than the first, at nearly four-thousand cubic metres per second. The river recovered its ancient course through the city centre, which had been dry since the eleventh century. Vast waves of water flowed furiously into the Barrio Carmen down Calle Baja, through to Bolseria, past the Central market, across the Plaza del Ayuntamiento and out again down Calle Barcas, a street which had originally taken its name from an ancient landing stage when the river had previously flown through the city. Most of the centre was under three metres of water, the worst hit areas were again on the North bank, Calle Doctor Oloriz was under more than five metres. Despite being close to the river, the Cathedral and the whole of the old Roman city was left completely untouched becoming once again the ancient island on which the city was founded.

The true death toll is unknown but official figures state that more than a hundred people lost their lives. Many more lost their homes, belongings and livelihoods in the case of some shopkeepers and traders. One body, found on the wall of the Viveros gardens after the waters had subsided, was that of Micaela Chulvi Benaches who hadn’t been killed by the flood at all. She had died of old age at 84 and was lying in state in the family living room when the waters washed her away. One man who had been trapped on the Puente de la Trinidad had climbed onto the head of the Statue of Santo Tomás de Villanueva to escape drowning. After holding on for more than two hours, he was finally thrown a rope and rescued to great cheers from the watching crowds. Many people had saved themselves by holding onto the railings and climbing up to first floor balconies along the Calle Barcas but the city itself would never be quite the same again.

The clear up began almost immediately and help came from all over Spain. The first to arrive was the Cartagena fire brigade from Murcia. Those doing military service in 1957 & 1958 were brought in to clean the city, spending most of their time up to their knees in the vast amounts of mud and sludge that the floods had left behind; they were known as the Quinta del fango “the mud generation”. New housing was built in the middle of the fields, which are now Avenida Blasco Ibáñez for those who had been made homeless. The development was named after l’Alguer in Sardinia. Rising up as it did in the middle of the Huerta it quickly became known as “La Isla perdida” (the lost island).

The river was diverted and a new river bed with a capacity to handle water flowing at up to 5,000 cubic metres per second was built to the south of the city. Just in case, the south wall of the new river is slightly lower so any future flood would flow south, away from the city. What the residents of Sedaví, Benitusser and Torrente thought of this at the time is not known.

After twenty years of bickering about what to do with the old riverbed, some bright sparks wanted to build a huge motorway right down the middle. Thankfully, the plan did not come to fruition.  Work finally started on the Turia park as a public green space, running right through the city, still known universally as “the river.” Subsequently, most significant public works have been centred on this previously neglected area, including the park itself, the Ciudad de las Ciencias, the Palau de la Musica, the Parque de Cabecera, the Bioparc. As a direct legacy of the flood, the seeds of modern Valencia were sown.

With many of its shops and houses devastated and destroyed, the Barrio Carmen was never again to recover its role as the business and commercial centre of the city. The shops and businesses moved out first to La Avenida del Oeste and later to Calle Colón. The last remaining aristocrats abandoned their crumbling Carmen palaces and joined the upper middle classes around the Gran Via and the barrio was left to rot. This may not have been such a bad thing. While the Calle Colón has lost all but a few of its original buildings to huge department stores & chains & franchises…the Carmen has been preserved in all its intricate, dusty, dilapidated splendour. Had it not been for the flood we might have had a huge concrete ‘El Corte Inglés’ built right in the middle of the Plaza de la Virgen or over what, thankfully, is still old Calle Caballeros.

Note the comment:

“While people were turning in for the night, some of the heaviest rains ever seen had been falling further inland “

KNMI confirm that 186mm of rain fell on Valencia over the three day period, including 125mm on the 14th. But this was evidently much less than fell inland. And as KNMI also show, daily totals of 120mm or more are not unusual there:

There is another relevant similarity to the 1957 flood, which as was also the result of a “Cold drop”:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Valencia_flood

A cold drop is a very common meteorological phenomenon in these parts, and as the BBC reported, it was this DANA event which made the storm so much worse this time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_drop

Valencia has regularly flooded throughout history. One estimate suggest at least 75 floods in the last seven centuries. The floods of 1949 and 1897 also stand out in recent times.

Ironically a year before the 1957 floods, Valencia had its highest daily rainfall on record, 262mm on Nov 17th. This appears to have had less flooding impact, because the waters flowed away downstream. The really bad flooding occurs when heavy rain falls inland, and goes on to be channelled into the River Turia.

There is one final and highly relevant comment I must make. From the 24/7 Valencia article:

“The river was diverted and a new river bed with a capacity to handle water flowing at up to 5,000 cubic metres per second was built to the south of the city. Just in case, the south wall of the new river is slightly lower so any future flood would flow south, away from the city.

And as Wikipedia note, it was this diversion which led to the catastrophic floods to the south of the city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2024_Spain_floods

It serves as reminder that flood defences more often than not simply transfer problems elsewhere.

Put Policy Pragmatism Over Climate Obsession

We are continually being told that climate change is getting worse and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and intense. Neither is true.

From Watts Up With That?

By Kristen Walker

We are continually being told that climate change is getting worse and natural disasters are becoming more frequent and intense. Neither is true.

Tropical hurricanes have battered the southeast for centuries, spanning the spectrum of severity. Category 4 and 5 storms, considered the worst of the worst, are nothing new; plenty occurred prior to the world’s so-called addiction to fossil fuels. The Labor Day Storm, considered one of Florida’s most powerful and destructive hurricanes, hit their shores in 1935. Governor DeSantis recently said, “This is something that the state has dealt with for its entire history. It’s something it will continue to deal with.”

The National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) records don’t indicate a strong correlation between hurricane intensity and carbon dioxide levels. Quite a few of those tropical storms struck various parts of the U.S. well before global warming became a concern.

Nor does NOAA show that tornadoes have become more powerful. The 1925 Tri-State Tornado, with a 219-mile path across three states in just 3.5 hours, is considered among the most intense.

When last year’s Maui wildfire raged, and many were quick to point fingers at climate change, countless climatologists cautioned not to link the two. Experts had warned for years that the over-grown brush and ignoring recommended mitigation measures would likely lead to deadly infernos.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not detect a strong relationship between climate change and extreme weather events.

Yet the panic-stricken rhetoric is driving energy policy with the belief that enacting legislation and overhauling how we develop and use energy will somehow alter global temperatures. Such drastic measures are affecting consumer welfare through energy shortfalls and price hikes, leaving increasing numbers of households energy poor. It has driven inflation and increased federal deficits. Adding insult to injury, these actions are having very little (if any) impact on climate.

Some researchers even assert that a few degrees of warming will benefit plant life and agriculture, and growing seasons will be longer. Renowned Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg often shares the fact that rising temperatures save lives because cold weather is more deadly.

Regardless, the U.S. has made tremendous progress in reducing its carbon footprint and curbing greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and other pollutants over the last several decades. Much of the headway is due to operational improvements and innovation within the industry.

Despite record production levels, oil and natural gas companies continue to reduce ghg emissions through upgraded and modernized infrastructure. The increased use of natural gas, which has replaced a significant amount of coal, is responsible for nearly half the electric power sector’s emissions reductions since 2005; increasing its use has actually done more to cut emissions in the U.S. than solar and wind combined.

The Environmental Protection Agency notes that between 1970 and 2023, GDP increased 321%, vehicle miles traveled increased 194%, energy consumption increased 42%, and America’s population grew by 63%. During the same time frame, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants dropped by 78%.

Energy is produced responsibly in America. Curtailing production here only spurs production in other nations like China and India, which do not maintain the same strict environmental standards as the Western World. Both developing countries are seeing record levels of coal production and are the greatest contributors to global emissions. It makes little sense to restrict oil, gas, and coal generation on our soil only to have it shift to a substantially bigger polluter. Such maneuvers do not change global energy demand; they merely relocate where the resource originates.

Letting the market work and allowing individuals to innovate have facilitated abundant and sensible energy production. The U.S. has already established rigorous environmental requirements, and the industry has shown it can succeed within reasonable confines.

Alarmists would do well to cease the catastrophizing and end-of-world fearmongering. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. Pragmatism and common sense, rather than climate hysteria, should be driving energy policy.

Energy demand is on the rise; practical solutions are vital to meeting those needs. Rather than a one-size-fits-all mentality, we must implement energy sources that best serve circumstances and do not restrict access to reliable and affordable energy. Consumers need energy that works, is plentiful and cheap, and allows them to carry out day-to-day functions. Anything less is unacceptable. Their well-being as well as the health of the economy should not be sacrificed at the altar of climate agendas.

Kristen Walker is a policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Big Green projects hoisted by their own petards

For decades environmentalists raised questionable, but often successful, objections to block mines, pipelines, nuclear power, and oil and gas operations.

Now, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet might say, they are “hoisted by their own petards,” referring to a small explosive device used in siege warfare.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

For decades environmentalists raised questionable, but often successful, objections to block mines, pipelines, nuclear power, and oil and gas operations.

Now, as Shakespeare’s Hamlet might say, they are “hoisted by their own petards,” referring to a small explosive device used in siege warfare.

In a bit of irony, the very legal and regulatory obstacles the Greens erected and deployed against fossil fuel companies they were opposed to are now coming back full circle to explode in their faces, blocking and hindering their beloved solar and wind projects. Even more poetically just, it has often been the “little guys” environmentalists have insisted they care so deeply about who are the ones wielding the weapons.

Energy expert and journalist Robert Bryce notes that farming families, small rural communities and Native American Tribes have rejected or restricted 35 wind and 58 solar projects this year, through September. Since 2015, these “little guys” have stymied a whopping 735 “renewable energy” projects across the USA.

Rural and coastal communities know those installations will be in their backyards. They apparently don’t want them impacting croplands and habitats, ruining scenic vistas, pummeling property values, killing birds and other wildlife – and creating major fire and toxic gas risks from lithium-ion electricity storage batteries.

Who could blame them? The bad news for the Greens is these locals are challenging their beloved “climate-friendly” projects, using the environmentalists’ own legal roadmaps … and winning.

In Idaho, local preservationists opposed the Lava Ridge Wind Project, which would install hundreds of 700-foot-tall turbines within eyeshot of the Minidoka National Historic Site, where a World War II Japanese internment camp was located. They have been joined by local officials, the Idaho legislature, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and both US senators in demanding that the US Bureau of Land Management scrap the project.

The unprecedented defiance convinced a nearby county to implement a moratorium on wind and solar farms the Biden-Harris Administration wanted as part of its climate agenda.

In next-door Oregon, Native Americans filed lawsuits to challenge a deepwater offshore wind project – which arguably makes no energy, economic, engineering or environmental sense. Even liberal Governor Tina Kotek has now changed her position on offshore wind, and an October auction was postponed because no company was interested in bidding.

In California, local officials and landowners oppose the proposed 320-MW Seguro battery energy storage facility, after a series of battery fires in EVs and at battery factories and energy storage facilities.

Heading east, after a decade-long legal battle, Oklahoma’s Osage Nation forced wind energy developers to tear down and remove dozens of turbines, because they had not obtained leases or permits to install the turbines and power lines on Native lands beforehand.

In Wisconsin, the Engelstad family and other locals are battling the Koshkonong solar project near Christiana, Wisconsin. It would blanket 6,400 acres (10 sq mi) of prime agricultural land and put a 667-MWh battery storage system hundreds of feet from an elementary school.

Along the Atlantic coast, multiple groups have helped to cancel the Ocean Wind 1 and 2 projects (NJ), put Atlantic Shores North and South (NJ) under pressure, make Skipjack Wind (MD) less promising, and subjected Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind and other offshore wind projects to litigation over harm to endangered whales.

Multi-hundred-mile transmission lines – including the Grain Belt Express (Kansas-Missouri-Illinois-Indiana) and Piedmont Reliability (Pennsylvania-Maryland-Virginia) – also face intense pushback.

The list of delayed, cancelled or stymied projects goes on and on.

Local residents, developers, regulators, permitting agencies and insurers are rightly concerned about the impacts of so-called “green” energy.  It is they who must consider its major issues that have received scant scrutiny in the past. They must address questions such as what to do with the thousands of solar panels or hundreds of wind turbines get worn out after 20 years … or maybe destroyed by hail, tornados or hurricanes. It is they who must figure out who pays for dismantling, removing and disposing the trash, and in whose backyard do those billions of pounds of trash go.

Case in point, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird recently sued a waste disposal company for failing to cut up, transport, recycle and otherwise properly dispose of 1,300 broken and decommissioned wind turbine blades, which the company simply left piled up at multiple locations across the state.

As green ventures collapse, there’s a reckoning environmentalists must come to grips with – they no longer have the public trust. They will have to make their case to state and local officials who, to quote Shakespeare, will determine whether green energy projects are “to be, or not to be.”  This may become much more difficult to do.

This article originally appeared at NewsMax

Wrong, Earth.com, Climate Change is Actually Enhancing Life on Earth

An undated Earth.com article claims “The foundation of life is at risk from climate change.” This is false. Real-world data shows that the Earth is actually increasing its biomass in response to the mild warming over the last century combined with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The article itself is nothing more than a mishmash of statements, none of which, separately or in combination, support the claim that climate change is threating life on Earth, as the title implies.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

An undated Earth.com article claims “The foundation of life is at risk from climate change.” This is false. Real-world data shows that the Earth is actually increasing its biomass in response to the mild warming over the last century combined with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The article itself is nothing more than a mishmash of statements, none of which, separately or in combination, support the claim that climate change is threating life on Earth, as the title implies. There is only a vague statement in the first paragraph which reads:

Photosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth, yet climate change increasingly threatens this essential process. With advanced tools, scientists can now study how shifts in temperature, humidity, and light impact photosynthesis and, by extension, the future of ecosystems.

It is true that “[p]hotosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth.” Photosynthesis is considered the foundation of life on Earth because it provides the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat, essentially acting as the base of the global food chain by converting sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into chemical energy that sustains almost all living organisms on the planet.

But what isn’t true is the claim that climate change is threatening the process of photosynthesis. In fact, data from multiple sources show that photosynthesis is actually being enhanced by the slight increase in temperature as well as the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Climate at a Glance – Global Greening, discusses the fact that NASA satellite imagery analysis from 2016 shows significant plant growth globally over the past 35 years as seen in Figure 1 below. The reference article also says:

Research from NASA as well as multiple other studies conclude that the increased plant growth is a response to rising carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere creating better growing conditions.

NASA’s results confirm earlier research which found that the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1982 and 2010 resulted in a 5-to-10 percent increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments.

Plant life is not just expanding in temperate regions. A 2018 study found the Sahara Desert had shrunk in area by 8 percent over the previous three decades, due a CO2 fertilization induced expansion of plant coverage.

Follow-up studies in 2018 and 2020, showed that on a global scale, greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Figure 1. This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015 detected by satellite. Credits: Boston University/R. Myneni. Image source: NASA

This is logical, because actual greenhouses use warmth and artificially increased carbon dioxide to provide a better growth environment for the plants. These facts are not in dispute, therefore it stands to reason that a slightly warmer Earth and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, all things being equal, provides a better environment for plant growth. Not only that, but a very recent peer reviewed paper published in Nature from Cornell University and the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought.

These findings refute the claims made in Earth.com’s article and headline photosynthesis and life on Earth are being “threatened.”

This isn’t truly surprising because the article itself provides no factual evidence to support its alarming claims. Earth.com’s article appears to be just another example of sloppy journalism in which a writer stitched together a few unrelated factoids about photosynthesis to make the article look “sciency,” only to leap to unsupported and false assertions that climate change is hampering photosynthesis and threatening life on Earth, when, in fact, there isn’t even a smidgen of evidence to support the claim. Earth.com did its readers a great disservice by pushing this false claim, which appears to be little more than a scare tactic.

Trump for President: AEA Endorsement

The American Energy Alliance is the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, a principled educational nonprofit in favor of voluntary transactions between consenting adults, which means a free market in energy anchored on private property rights and the rule of law. Classical liberalism is the worldview of IER/AEA.

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“If given a second term, I have no doubt you will pursue and achieve numerous additional victories for the American people, including reducing the size and influence of the federal government in our daily lives, maintaining our status as the number one energy producer in the world, reducing the involvement of the federal government in energy markets, and preserving our ability to choose the types of cars and trucks that best suit our needs. In other words, your energy agenda will return those decisions to consumers, families, and businesses.” – Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance (below)

The American Energy Alliance is the advocacy arm of the Institute for Energy Research, a principled educational nonprofit in favor of voluntary transactions between consenting adults, which means a free market in energy anchored on private property rights and the rule of law. Classical liberalism is the worldview of IER/AEA.

The September 5, 2024, letter of endorsement from AEA president Tom Pyle to Donald Trump follows:

Dear President Trump:
On behalf of the American Energy Alliance (AEA), the country’s premier pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer, and free-market energy organization, I am proud to endorse your candidacy for President of the United States.

Under your leadership, the United States became the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, greatly enhancing our energy security in the process. You kept energy prices low, which helped the poor, the elderly, those on fixed incomes, and local institutions like schools and hospitals. As promised, you also reduced duplicative regulatory burdens and helped save American families thousands of dollars each year in needless regulatory costs.

This is in stark contrast to your opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, who has supported policies that restrict energy production and increase costs, aligning with wealthy environmental interests and bureaucrats in Washington. Her approach, influenced by the Green New Deal, is harmful to working and middle-class Americans.

If given a second term, I have no doubt you will pursue and achieve numerous additional victories for the American people, including reducing the size and influence of the federal government in our daily lives, maintaining our status as the number one energy producer in the world, reducing the involvement of the federal government in energy markets, and preserving our ability to choose the types of cars and trucks that best suit our needs. In other words, your energy agenda will return those decisions to consumers, families, and businesses.

For all of these reasons, and many more, I am proud to announce AEA’s endorsement of Donald J. Trump for reelection and look forward to four more years of putting America’s energy interests first

Comment: IER is scholarly and non-partisan, which is the approach of this website. I have reviewed many energy/climate platforms in the current election, not only Trump’s. On the Left: Democrat Party, Green Party, Cornel West for President, and The Party For Socialism and Liberation. On the free-market side, GOP Platform, Libertarian Party, American Petroleum Institute, Heritage Foundation/Agenda 25, and America First Policy Institute.

The criteria for endorsement is energy freedom, a maximal separation of government and energy (oil, gas, coal, nuclear, renewables, electricity). This begins but does not end with Donald Trump. The U.S. Department of Energy should be abolished with its non-civilian functions transferred to other agencies for separate scrutiny. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should be abolished with enabling legislation (Federal Power Act of 1935; Federal Natural Gas Act of 1938) repealed. The energy functions within the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should be ended with enabling legislation such as the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act repealed,

New subsidies for favored energies should not be proposed or enacted under a Trump Administration. No special tax breaks for oil, gas, coal, and LNG. No subsidies for existing or new nuclear capacity. Eliminate subsidies, do not add to them. Fair field, no favor; a free, unhampered market for all.