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.
Pennsylvanians are anxious about their futures. However, a recent poll shows a clear pathway to rebuilding optimism in the Keystone State.
New polling by the Commonwealth Foundation shows statewide pessimism. More than two-thirds of Pennsylvania voters believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, and more than half say the same about the commonwealth.
So, what exactly keeps Pennsylvanians up at night? Inflation and the rising cost of living remain the undisputed top concern. Seven out of ten Pennsylvanians reported inflation affecting their household budgets. (Immigration and the U.S. economy also received honorable mention as top issues.)
Though the inflation rate has dropped, many view the state economy on a continuing downslide. More than half of poll respondents believe Pennsylvania’s economy has worsened in recent months, with only 35% seeing improvement. Moreover, nearly half said the state’s business environment is worse than 10 years ago, and only a third said now was a good time to get a job in the Keystone State.
Economic anxiety has inspired many Pennsylvanians to seek greener pastures. More than a third responded they are personally motivated to move or know somebody about to or already has.
Where are they going? The top three destinations are Florida, Texas, and North Carolina. Respondents credit these states with better economic conditions, such as a lower cost of living, fewer taxes, and better employment opportunities.
In fact, Florida is quite the destination for outgoing Pennsylvanians. Newly released census data shows about 31,000 Pennsylvanians moved to the Sunshine State between 2018 and 2022—above any other state.
Pennsylvania has a troubling, persistent outmigration pattern, as thousands of residents seek better economic opportunities in other states. In 13 of the last 14 years, Pennsylvania has suffered a net loss in domestic migration, meaning more people were moving out than in.
Harrisburg can stop this mass exodus and ease Pennsylvanians’ economic anxiety—and lawmakers can start by making electricity more affordable.
Skyrocketing electricity bills force many Pennsylvanians to pinch pennies. About three-fourths of respondents said utility bills increased in the last two years, and they worry about their ability to afford future hikes. Most already turn off lights, appliances, and electronics to conserve electricity.
However, lawmakers regularly defy this public sentiment by floating green-energy proposals that will likely make electricity more expensive.
In March, Gov. Josh Shapiro proposed amending the state’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard. Currently, Pennsylvania law requires 8% of electricity to come from solar and wind. Shapiro’s proposal—the Pennsylvania Reliable Energy Sustainability Standard (PRESS)—would up that mandate to 35%. However, a plurality of voters—40%—oppose PRESS, with 33% supporting it.
Shapiro should also avoid the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). The Commonwealth Court ruled RGGI’s carbon tax unconstitutional, but Shapiro appealed the decision. He should tread lightly though—only 22% of Pennsylvanians support RGGI.
Also, Pennsylvanians don’t agree with heavy-handed tactics as seen in California. The Golden State ostensibly banned gas-powered cars and mandated all new passenger vehicles be “zero-emission vehicles,” such as electric vehicles (EVs), by 2035. When asked if they wanted to bring this ban to Pennsylvania, two-thirds said, “No thanks.”
Moreover, Pennsylvanians aren’t sold on EVs. Only 5% said they’ve purchased one. Nearly six in ten said they wouldn’t even consider buying an EV, citing costs and the lack of charging stations as their main objections.
The pathway to energy affordability begins with what Pennsylvania excels at: natural gas. Pennsylvanians prefer expanding our state’s robust energy sector. About three-quarters support increasing permitting and expanding natural gas infrastructure, such as pipelines. Eight in ten said natural gas drilling is important to the state’s economic well-being.
Climate change isn’t top of mind for most Pennsylvanians. Instead, rising energy costs, grid reliability, and costly regulations rank as the most-pressing issues facing Pennsylvania energy.
As the Commonwealth Foundation’s new energy policy platform suggests, reliable and affordable energy does not need to be at odds with environmental conservation. Rather than falling into the trap of climate alarmism, Pennsylvania lawmakers must defend Pennsylvania’s status as one of the top energy-producing states in the nation.
With the economic productivity inherent in responsible energy development, Pennsylvanians can afford to pay their utility bills, find meaningful employment, and make the commonwealth thrive economically.
André Béliveau is the Senior Manager of Energy Policy at the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free-market think tank.
In a recent open letter, researchers warned that a warmer Arctic could lead to cold waves across Northern Europe – due to “complex feedback mechanisms”.
In a recent open letter, researchers warned that a warmer Arctic could lead to cold waves across Northern Europe – due to “complex feedback mechanisms”.
According to Forschung & Wissen here, an international group of renowned scientists recently published an open letter (PDF) stating that the melting of ice in the Arctic could disrupt ocean currents in the Atlantic, and thus have “devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world.”
According to their publication in the journal Nature Communications, October 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53401-3, melting of sea ice during the last interglacial significantly impacted the density and salinity of seawater, and thus led to significant changes in ocean currents and heat distribution in the oceans.
The researchers looked at sediment cores collected in the North Sea and reconstructed surface temperatures and salinity and found that these processes have led to a significant drop in temperature in northern Europe.
According to Mohamed Ezat: “Our discovery that the increased melting of Arctic sea ice in the Earth’s past probably led to significant cooling in northern Europe is alarming.”
He adds: “The impacts particularly on Nordic Countries would likely be catastrophic, including major cooling in the region while surrounding regions warm. This would be an enlargement and deepening of the ‘cold blob’ that already has developed over the subpolar Atlantic Ocean and likely lead to unprecedented extreme weather.”
A group of psychologists have claimed fear drives deniers to reject the truth. But they ignore evidence academic groupthink hysteria is the real “climate crisis”.
A group of psychologists have claimed fear drives deniers to reject the truth. But they ignore evidence academic groupthink hysteria is the real “climate crisis”.
Time to freak out? How the existential terror of hurricanes can fuel climate change denial
Published: October 30, 2024 11.40pm AEDT
Jamie Goldenberg Professor of Psychology and Area Director, Cognitive, Neuroscience and Social Psychology, University of South Florida
Emily P. Courtney Assistant Professor of Instruction, University of South Florida
Joshua Hart Professor of Psychology, Union College
As TVs across Florida broadcast the all-too-familiar images of a powerful hurricane headed for the coast in early October 2024, people whose homes had been damaged less than two weeks earlier by Hurricane Helene watched anxiously. Hurricane Milton was rapidly intensifying into a dangerous storm, fueled by the Gulf of Mexico’s record-breaking temperatures.
…
Still, many people deny that climate change is a worsening threat, or that it exists at all. As its impacts grow more visible and destructive, how is this possible?
One answer lies in a unique facet of human psychology – specifically, in how people manage the fear aroused by existential threats. For many people, denying the existence of a climate crisis is not only convenient, but may feel psychologically necessary.
…
Terror management theory
The Pulitzer Prize-winning anthropologist Ernest Becker put it this way: “The idea of death, the fear of it, haunts the human animal like nothing else … to overcome it by denying it in some way is the final destiny for man.”
…
Terror management theory predicts that individuals whose ideologies conflict with environmental concerns may ironically double down on those beliefs to psychologically manage the existential threat posed by climate-related disasters. It’s similar to how mortality reminders can lead people to engage in risky behavior, such as smoking or tanning. Hurricanes may reinforce denial and commitment to a worldview that rejects climate change.
What saddens me about such articles is the alarmist academics who write them never seem to publicly admit to the possibility they got it wrong.
Because there is plenty of evidence the climate crisis narrative is simply Western academic mass hysteria.
The strongest evidence for hysteria and groupthink is all the academics from outside the North American and European sphere of influence who are sounding the alarm on the lack of supporting evidence for alarmist climate claims.
My name is Yonatan Dubi, I am a professor of chemistry and physics at Ben Gurion University, Israel. I am also one of Israel’s leading advocates for rational environmentalism and climate realism. Together with a few colleagues we have conducted a very nice research, detailing and quantifying the flaws in the famous consensus study by Lynas et al, which (falsely) claimed the ridiculous 99% consensus. After a year long journey, our paper was finally published in the peer reviewed journal Climate, the link is
You would think a group of psychologists like the people who wrote the article at the top of the page might take an interest in the possibility they are actually living through a period of academic group hysteria, like past episodes I am sure they have studied. Even if they don’t accept this interpretation of events, they should at least mention it, and explain why they don’t believe it is the correct interpretation.
A courageous study which exposed the groupthink would echo down the ages, would be celebrated by our descendants, just as we celebrate academics of the past who stood against the darkness of ignorance and prejudice.
People always remember heroes who stand up for the truth. How long will people remember the name of psychologist Jordan Peterson?
Environmentalists have waged a campaign against natural gas, but users of this efficient, low-emission fuel are fighting back. A wide range of industry groups are backing Washington state’s Initiative 2066 to protect the right to choose natural gas.
Environmentalists have waged a campaign against natural gas, but users of this efficient, low-emission fuel are fighting back. A wide range of industry groups are backing Washington state’s Initiative 2066 to protect the right to choose natural gas.
By 2030, Washington is supposed to reduce carbon emissions to 45% below 1990 levels—one of its many overlapping climate goals. The state’s most recent energy plan declares that the cheapest route to meeting Olympia’s climate targets is to switch many uses of oil and gas to electric sources. Last year the Building Code Council amended the state energy code to make it prohibitively costly to install gas appliances in new buildings. In March the Legislaturepassed a law allowing the state’s largest natural-gas and electricity utility, Puget Sound Energy, to pass the costs of going green onto consumers and mandating the utility files a plan “to achieve all cost-effective electrification of end uses currently served by natural gas.”
To the Washington Hospitality Association and the Building Industry Association of Washington, Initiative 2066’s cosponsors, this sounded like an economic wrecking ball.
Anthony Anton, CEO of the hospitality association, says 84% of the restaurateurs he represents rely on natural gas. Remodeling to go electric is a “massive cost at a time where operators just can’t afford it,” he says. Some say the quality of their product would suffer, as some cooking methods, such as stir-frying, are difficult to perform on lower-heat electrical stoves. Most of the association’s members are very small businesses with substantial debt from Covid lockdowns.
The building association worries the new energy code will raise the state’s already high housing costs, locking out potential buyers. The code requires that new buildings meet a certain environmental “score.” Without the points from an electric heat pump, a builder will have to make up the difference with other green measures that run between $15,000 and $20,000 in a single-family home. “Every time they raise the price $1,000, it prices out another 500 Washington families,” says Greg Lane, the association’s executive vice president.
Dozens of varied industry groups support Initiative 2066. Each has its own reasons. The Washington Denturist Association worries about the expense of switching from propane- or gas-based equipment and a lack of reliable power. Most members are small businesses and it’s a good path for immigrant dentists whose credentials don’t carry over to the U.S.
The Washington State Tree Fruit Association (of which my paternal grandfather’s company, Apple King, is a member) is concerned about rising costs of refrigeration to keep produce fresh. A sudden power outage could be catastrophic for the state’s apple industry. Trade regulations for its top two export markets require that fruit be constantly refrigerated at a specific temperature for as long as 90 days.
The state’s cheapest energy plan would almost double electricity demand in Washington by 2050, putting an unprecedented strain on the grid. The only real option is to increase wind and solar generation, since the state’s plentiful hydroelectric capacity can’t do more without potentially threatening salmon. Wind and solar tend to falter in Washington in the winter, when energy demand peaks.
Consumers would also suffer in Washington’s green utopia. Everything from a haircut to a ballgame would become more expensive as the price of electricity rises. Climate advocates argue that Washingtonians will recoup their costs over time thanks to efficiency gains. But a 2021 report from Home Innovation Labs estimates that recovering the cost of a heat-pump installation could take 47 to 49 years. It’s worse for existing gas customers. The Building Industry Association of Washington estimates that switching from natural gas to electricity in a single-family home would cost as much as $70,000. Heat pumps also tend to fail in the sort of frigid weather that hits rural Washington in winter.
Proponents of electrification insist that technology will improve over time. But if they’re really confident that green energy will be the best option for consumers and businesses, then Initiative 2066 is no threat. Washington voters should ask why climate advocates still see it as one.
Vauxhall owner Stellantis’s sales have plunged by more than a quarter amid production issues and an electric vehicle slowdown in Europe. The Telegraph has the story.
Stellantis, which also owns Citroen, Fiat and Peugeot, said revenues slumped from €45.1bn (£37.7bn) to €33bn (£27.6bn) in the third quarter of 2024.
The number of vehicles shipped by the company fell from 1.5 million to 1.3 million over the period.
Bosses have blamed delayed model launches and tough competition in Europe, as well as lower numbers of cars shipped to the U.S. – where the company is seeking to shift a surplus of vehicles that have piled up in sales lots.
In Europe, Stellantis and other car makers have complained about tough new regulations aimed at boosting take-up of EVs, even as inflation has battered households and led to softer demand for the cars.
Sales in Europe dropped from €14.1bn (£11.8bn) to €12.5bn (£10.5bn) in the third quarter, while vehicle shipments fell from 599 million to 496 million.
Stellantis and its European peers face what many analysts see as an existential struggle with Chinese electric car manufacturers for control of the passenger vehicle mass market.
This has prompted Volkswagen, Europe’s biggest car maker, to propose huge workforce cuts and the closure of German factories for the first time, partly in an effort to plough more investment into EV development.
The climate is changing, and the geological record of climate change clearly shows that (a) we live in an unusually cold climate, (b) recent warming is neither dangerous or unusual, and (c) the main drivers of climate change are the sun, the oceans, and plate tectonics.
The climate is changing, and the geological record of climate change clearly shows that (a) we live in an unusually cold climate, (b) recent warming is neither dangerous or unusual, and (c) the main drivers of climate change are the sun, the oceans, and plate tectonics.
First, I will describe climate change over the last million years, and especially the last 120,000 years, including local (Christchurch, NZ) and other well-known examples. Then I will put this in the context of the last 540,000,000 years, a period known as the Phanerozoic during which most complex life forms developed and evolved. This period was almost always much warmer than today, with this warmer climate being punctuated by three important cold periods, one of which we remain in today.
I will then discuss in section 3 below the roles CO2 and our emissions play in climate. I will argue that almost all our emissions should have dissolved in the oceans to maintain an equilibrium partitioning of ca. 50/1 CO2 between the oceans and the atmosphere, which means that all other things being equal, CO2 levels in the atmosphere should have risen by only 7 ppm. This is not what has happened, and climate scientists have proposed, therefore, that our CO2 emissions must “hang around” in the atmosphere for 300 to 1000 years. However, that idea makes no sense, given that every water droplet in clouds is dissolving CO2 and transporting it via rain into the oceans. No reason to hang around at all. Instead, I propose that the observed ocean warming since 1905 (probably due to the sun, possibly volcanic activity) has resulted in the release of oceanic CO2, which is the main reason why atmospheric CO2 has increased by 140 ppm. I propose, too, that ocean warming is responsible for warming the lower atmosphere. Our emissions play no part whatsoever in the global warming.
I go on to discuss the disgraceful mismatch between facts and the political and activist commentaries on present-day warming. It is remarkable that the UN and climate activists do not correctly report what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes about severe weather events and their frequency. It is a fact that the IPCC finds no clear evidence for attributing most such events to the influence of human emissions.
I provide a section on agriculture and methane emissions. It is significant that a distinguished climate scientist has recently described those emissions as “not a problem”.
Finally, I discuss what comes next, climate-wise. A very cold glaciation in 80,000 years is probable. In the meantime we do need to cut our use of fossil fuels, but there is no rush, and we would do this, not to control emissions or climate, but because fossil fuels are valuable finite resources.
*David Shelley gained his PhD from Bristol University and then lectured in geology for nearly 40 years at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ. He was Dean of Postgraduate Studies for 6 years. He is the author of 62 research papers and two textbooks, one on mineralogy, the other on igneous and metamorphic petrology.
1. The last one million years of climate change
We live in a very cold period of Earth’s history, with the last 1,000,000 years or so marked by regular oscillations (roughly every 100,000 years) from extremely cold glacial periods to relatively short warmer periods of the order of 10,000 years long that are called interglacials. The following figure shows the well-known parallel ups and downs of temperature (T) and CO2 recorded in ice cores from Antarctica over the last 450,000 years. Note that Ts in the interglacials 125,000 and 325,000 years ago were higher than those today. Note, too, that the present interglacial is marked by several rapid oscillations of T. It should also be noted that Ts in the tropics did not change markedly while Ts were oscillating wildly at the poles. I will show later how these Ts relate to global average Ts and latitude.
The maximum T of the present interglacial was reached about 8,000 years ago, and it is known by geologists as the Holocene climate optimum. This T maximum was marked by a sea level ca. 2 metres higher than today. Ts have generally cooled since then with several fluctuations, one of which we are experiencing today as a slight global warming. Locally, around Christchurch, the evidence for the higher Holocene climate optimum sea level is clear. Ditches in the Dallington region exposed deposits of flat beach pebbles, marking the higher coastline, and alongside the road between Tai Tapu and the Gebbies Pass turnoff there is a series of sea cliffs and wave cut platforms in the volcanic rocks of Banks Peninsula that mark the higher sea stand. The high sand dunes alongside Linwood Ave near the Avon River probably relate to this higher sea level. Evidence for similarly high sea levels and Ts has also been found in the Thames and Northland regions of NZ, along the east coast of Australia, and generally around the world. The famous stone village of Skara Brae in the Orkneys dates back some 6,000 years, and the local vegetation at that time indicates a warmer climate.
The fluctuations of T during the Holocene have been marked by retreats and advances of mountain glaciers. The historical evidence of glacial advances during the Little Ice Age over the last few hundred years in the European Alps is well known. Now, with modern warming, glaciers are retreating, but as they retreat they reveal the remains of older Holocene forests, which clearly show that the glaciers had retreated previously to a greater extent than today. How, otherwise, did Hannibal get his elephants over the Alps? The same situation is found in Scandinavia and Alaska. The present-day retreat of glaciers in NZ must be seen in this context. Nothing extraordinary is going on.
Twenty thousand years ago, at the height of the last intense glaciation, all of Canada and northern Europe (including much of Britain) was covered in ice sheets, many more than a kilometre thick. The South Island lakes of NZ did not exist, because those valleys were filled with ice up to ca. one kilometre thick. This huge amount of ice meant that sea levels globally were ca. 140 metres lower than today. In Sumner, Christchurch, you’d need binoculars to see the shoreline way away in the distance from the present-day beach. Imagine, no North Sea, no English Channel, no trees in Canada or Britain (Britain had ice sheets in the north and a cold frozen treeless land in the south). Coastlines globally were hugely different from today, with vast coastal areas exposed that have now been swamped by oceans that have risen by 140 metres. The ice would have been slow to melt in the first stages of interglacial warming, but the rapid rise of Ts into the Holocene climate maximum would eventually have been accompanied by huge amounts of melting and sea level rises of at least the order of 2 metres every 100 years. This substantial and rapid global warming from 20,000 to 8,000 years ago took place without the influence of any human-generated CO2. The Holocene climate optimum was marked by the development of the Sahara desert, which previously had been a watery lush area occupied by humans. As climate change and the developing desert made life impossible, the tribes of the Sahara region moved to the Nile River where they engineered irrigation schemes watered by the Nile and established the great Egyptian civilization.
One hundred and twenty-five thousand years ago, at the height of the last interglacial, Ts were higher than those of the Holocene climate optimum, and sea levels were ca. 10 metres higher than today. Evidence is easy to find, and includes the Florida Keys, which represents a barrier coral reef that grew at that time but is now stranded because of the onset of the last glaciation that lowered sea levels by ca. 150 metres, followed by the present-day interglacial and oceanic rise of ca. 140 metres. London at this time had something approaching a Mediterranean climate, as recorded by fossils now on display in a London museum. I believe evidence for this high stand of 10 metres can be seen around Sumner in Christchurch, NZ (my observations, not closely examined and studied — a good project for a student?). The cliffs at Whitewash Head seem to display a large wave-cut platform that extends out to sea about 10 metres above present sea level, and I suggest that Cave Rock, Shag Rock, the old flat-topped sea stack on Nayland St to the west of the library, the flat topped cliff at the west end of Peacocks Gallop that once connected with the top of the higher pre-earthquake sea stack of Shag Rock, and the flat-topped sea stack at the western end of Beachville Rd in Redcliffs, are all remains of this ca. 10 metre-high wave-cut platform of 125,000 years ago.
To summarise, over the last million years, every 100,000 years has been marked by a glaciation with sea levels some 140 metres lower than today, and with huge kilometre-thick glaciers covering vast areas of north America and Europe (and filling all the glacial lakes of southern NZ). The Great Barrier Reef of Australia, which would have re-grown during each interglacial, would have been left stranded during each glaciation as a >100 metre-high exposed mass of dead coral that would have been massively eroded by the colder oceans during storms. During every interglacial, for a relatively short time, the barrier reef would have grown again as sea levels rose and ocean Ts rose, only to be left stranded and exposed above sea level every time a new glaciation was initiated. The reef is therefore very much a temporary feature that comes and goes with these regular fluctuations of T and climate. Coastlines changed dramatically with the repeated huge changes in sea level. Fauna and flora would have been under almost constant pressure to migrate and evolve dynamically as the environment was undergoing these dramatic changes.
The last 100 years of global warming is almost imperceptible and inconsequential in the context of all this. Now, let’s look at the broader geological picture of the Phanerozoic.
2. Climate change during the Phanerozoic — the last 540,000,000 years
Geologists have been gathering evidence about climate change for more than 200 years, long before anyone else had even thought about the subject. I was very lucky to study geology first in the 1950s as a schoolboy in South Wales, UK. Cycling from my home, I was able to examine a succession of rocks 425 to 200 million years old that started with coral reefs, then desert sands, coral reefs again, a rain forest (coals and river sands), more desert sands, and finally warm sea deposits. Three times South Wales had been under the sea, twice above sea level, and the changes in climate were obvious. South Wales is presently above sea level and a wet, green, temperate place, but I was aware that much of Britain had been covered very recently in thick ice, making South Wales uninhabitable until ca. 10,000 years ago. Climate change indeed. I am old enough that my early days of geology predate the development of the theory of plate tectonics, and understanding the geological record of climate change was then difficult. What a revolution plate tectonics was, opening our eyes to much more cogent explanations of what has been happening over many millions of years.
Geologists have long been aware that Earth has usually been much warmer than today. A recent synthesis of the data is that of Scotese et al., published in Earth Science Reviews in 2021, and figure 23 from that paper is given below. It shows just how very low the present-day global average T of 14 °C is (far right of the diagram). It shows three very cold periods at ca. 450 million years (Ordovician), 300 million years (Carboniferous–Permian), and the present day. It also shows how much warming would be required to escape from the present glaciation. Scotese et al. support the general idea that human emissions are causing global warming. I will argue against that later. The main point I would immediately make is that more global warming would simply restore Earth to a more normal climate. We should not be alarmed by it, because animals and plants thrived during the very warm periods of Earth’s history. Strangely, however, the greatest ever mass extinction event (perhaps 96% of species became extinct) took place 252 million years ago at the end of the Permian ice age when Earth was warming. We do not know the reason.
The record of average global temperatures over the last 540 million years, and the projection of future global warming onto the Phanerozoic Temperature Time Scale. The likely amount of Post-Anthropogenic Warming (PAW) (red line). The boxes indicate times in the geological past when global temperatures were within the range of predicted PAW. When the Global Average Temperature is below 18 °C large polar icecaps can form. When the Global Average Temperature is above 18 °C large polar icecaps are unlikely to form.
Figure 7 from the Scotese et al. paper is shown next, and it shows what global average Ts of between 8 and 23 °C would mean in terms of Ts from the poles to the equator. The coldest 8 °C global average T would mean Ts of minus 50 °C at the poles but with Ts remaining close to 30 °C at the equator. The present-day global average T of ca. 14 °C is shown as a dashed line. Ts at the equator will never vary much from 30 °C while Ts at the poles will vary markedly with any change in average T. For 63% of Phanerozoic history, the global average T has been between 19 and 21 °C, which is 6 °C on average warmer than today. The very slight global warming of the last 100 years is really neither here nor there, and the very idea that Earth is facing a threat to its very existence, or in the words of the UN, entering an era of global boiling, is simply stupid.
The polar temperature and the Pole to Equator temperature gradient for different Global Average Temperatures (GAT). Polar Temperature = average temperature above 67° latitude (N&S), Deep Sea = the average temperature at the bottom of the oceans (after Valdes et al., 2020). Pole to Equator Gradient = the average change in temperature for every one degree of latitude measured between 30° and 60° latitude. The Pole to Equator temperature gradient is shallow near the Equator and steepens rapidly near the Pole. The plus signs are the combined average temperatures for the present-day northern and southern hemispheres. Frequency = the percent of the time during the Phanerozoic characterized by this Pole-to-Equator temperature gradient. All of these calculations are based on an average tropical temperature of 26 °C (15 N – 15 S).
3. The drivers of climate change
The IPCC was set up to investigate the relationship between modern global warming and our CO2 emissions. A reasonable hypothesis is that if CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, then our emissions may be causing global warming, perhaps dangerously. But if we are doing science, we must also consider the possibility that CO2 is not a potent driver of warming, and that the warming we observe is the result of something else. Unfortunately, the IPCC has become completely obsessed with the idea that CO2 is the potent driver of warming. It quickly rejects any other possibility. Yet a key factor in assessing the potency of CO2 is knowing a value for the so-called climate sensitivity of CO2. A sensitivity of 1 would mean that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would warm Earth by 1 °C (hardly a threat to Earth’s existence), a sensitivity of 6 would mean a warming of 6 °C. Yet even the IPCC admits we still do not know what the sensitivity is. The literature is filled with estimates that range from less than 1 to 6 (figure below). How then can one put any faith in the modelling of climate scientists when one of the most fundamental factors is unknown? Modelling may be a useful adjunct to science, but it is not real science. Science must be based on facts and observations, not predictions based on uncertainties. The fact that there have been innumerable attempts to model future Ts, all giving different answers, and with nearly all of them running hot relative to real observations, means the results of modelling are simply not credible. Yet these models are used by the UN to threaten us with doom and gloom. So let us look at alternatives to the IPCC narrative.
The hypothesis underlying the IPCC narrative can be summed up as follows. (1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas (TRUE, but we must remember we really do not know how potent it is as a greenhouse gas). (2) We are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (TRUE). (3) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing (TRUE). (4) Earth is warming (TRUE). (5) Therefore, our emissions are causing global warming (NO. This is the flaw in the argument, as I will explain here).
Our emissions are tiny in amount relative to the total amount of carbon in the ocean–atmosphere system. According to the IPCC (2022), our emissions since industrialization amount to 2500 GtCO2, the equivalent of 320 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere. The oceans contain 50 times more C than the atmosphere, and this ratio of 50/1 must represent some sort of dynamic equilibrium partitioning of the CO2 between ocean and atmosphere. To maintain that equilibrium, one would have expected 98% of our emissions since industrialization to have been taken in by the oceans, leaving 50 GtCO2 in the atmosphere (just 7 ppm). Clearly, this is not what has happened, because atmospheric CO2 has risen since industrialization from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, a rise of 140 ppm, not just 7 ppm. NASA suggests, therefore, that CO2 must hang around in the atmosphere, residing there for anything between 300 and 1000 years, causing global warming. However, we know that (a) CO2 dissolves very easily in water, (2) the atmosphere is far from static, and often very turbulent in stormy weather, (3) the oceans, too, especially at the interface with the atmosphere, may also be very turbulent, and (4) water particles in clouds absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, and then send that CO2 into the oceans as acid rain (all rain is acid because of dissolved CO2). It seems to me, therefore, absurd to suggest that our CO2 emissions can just hang around in the atmosphere instead of moving into the oceans to maintain the equilibrium partitioning of ca. 50/1. Something else must be happening, and indeed it is — the oceans are warming.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States has a record of sea surface Ts of the oceans since 1880, and the NOAA graph below shows that warming started suddenly in earnest around 1905. There was a bit of a hiatus from 1945 to 1975, but then warming continued until the present day. Henry’s Law dictates that if the oceans warm they will release CO2 into the atmosphere. Indeed, the equilibrium partitioning ratio of CO2 between ocean and atmosphere will gradually reduce from the figure of 50/1 as CO2 is released. I have called this “dynamic equilibrium partitioning”, because while Henry’s Law must apply, the heterogeneities in the ocean atmosphere system where water and CO2 are being partitioned are considerable, and one can only look broadly at the Earth system as a whole. Never mind, we already do that sort of broad thinking when we talk about average global Ts, and so on.
If CO2 is released from the oceans, this will counteract the movement of CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans (a buffering effect) and some of our emitted CO2 will be retained in the atmosphere because of this buffering. The equilibrium partitioning ratio of 50/1 will reduce as the oceans warm, and it is easy to demonstrate that our emissions are so small compared to the total amount already in the entire ocean–atmosphere system that the increase in atmospheric CO2 would be more-or-less the same regardless as to how much we emit. As noted above, if the oceans weren’t warming, our emissions would only have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 7 ppm. The fact that CO2 has increased by 140 ppm is because the oceans are warming and expelling CO2. Our emissions are hanging around in the atmosphere only because of the buffering effect. One may conclude, therefore, that the increase in the global average T of the lower atmosphere is because of the warming of the oceans, not our emissions.
4. The oceans
The oceans, which are warming, are very much capable of warming the atmosphere. This is immediately evident when major changes take place in the pattern of ocean currents. When the equatorial trade winds blow more strongly westwards from South America, they push the waters of the Pacific Ocean westwards, thus dragging up much colder water from depth along the S American coast and spreading those colder waters westwards into the Pacific. The surge of water westwards causes sea levels in northern Australia to rise, making it easier for the Great Barrier Reef to grow (coral reefs need space to grow upwards). This is the La Nina pattern, which is relatively cool because of the upsurge of cold deep Pacific water. When the trade winds are less strong, much less cold water is drawn up, the Pacific Ocean to the west of S America becomes warmer again (now called El Nino), and sea levels fall in Australia, making life more difficult for the corals, bringing them closer to the hot sun, and perhaps leading to bleaching. During a strong El Nino, global lower atmospheric Ts rise by ca. 1 °C in just a year or two, and then fall by the same amount very rapidly when El Nino stops. The 1 °C rise has nothing whatsoever to do with our emissions. Yet the climate alarmists still tell us that a 1.5 °C warming is dangerous, and that global warming over the last 100 years is unusually rapid. What rubbish both those statements are.
If we recognize the ability of the oceans to warm the atmosphere, it is hardly surprising to find that the graph of lower atmospheric global warming (next figure) almost exactly mimics the graph for the warming of the oceans (figure above). This suggests very strongly that the Ts of the lower atmosphere are directly linked to those of the oceans. This is not surprising, given that the oceans have a mass enormously greater than the atmosphere, and that water is remarkable for its unusually large heat capacity, enabling it to store huge amounts of heat. In contrast, the atmosphere is ill equipped to store heat, and it cannot effectively warm the oceans, as explained by Brendan Godwin (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351436065_The_GHE_Theory_cannot_warm_the_oceans). The fact that average global sea surface Ts are between 20 and 21 °C, and that the average global lower atmosphere T is just 14 °C, also makes it unlikely the atmosphere can be warming the oceans.
We all know from beach-side experiences that the air is barely able to make any impression on the T of the sea, and we all know that the direct light of the sun is immediately able to warm the oceans down to a reasonable depth. So why is it that the IPCC and climate scientists are obsessed with the atmosphere and not the oceans? Indeed, miffed by lower atmospheric warming not being as great as predicted in their models, climate scientists claim that the greenhouse heating of the atmosphere has been lost from the atmosphere to the oceans, causing their warming. I quote from a NOAA document on Ocean Heat Content “The ocean is storing an estimated 91 percent of the excess heat energy trapped in the Earth’s climate system by excess greenhouse gases”. It is strange that it is claimed the turbulence of the ocean–atmosphere interface leads to the transfer of heat from the atmosphere into the ocean, yet it is also claimed that CO2 has to hang around in the atmosphere because there is insufficient activity at that interface. Strange, too, that the atmosphere is supposed to heat the oceans, despite being significantly cooler on average than the oceans. And also remember it is yet to be established that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas (we still don’t know what CO2 climate sensitivity is).
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the graph of upper sea-level temperatures from NOAA (second figure up above) shows a very sudden and rapid rise of Ts from about 1905. Apart from the hiatus in T rise from 1945 to 1975, the graph shows a more-or-less constant rate of increase in T. How could that possibly be if warming was due to greenhouse-gas heat from the atmosphere? — because back in 1905 our emissions were small. If greenhouse-gas heating were responsible, one would expect the increase in T to start very gradually, and to be much more rapid as one approaches the present day.
So what may be heating the oceans if not the greenhouse gas heat of the atmosphere? The sun is the most obvious answer. Climate scientists now reluctantly accept that the 100,000 year cycles of glaciation and interglacial over the last million years are primarily due to changes in the amount of heat derived from the sun, due to Milankovitch cycles, the main one of which is the 100,000 year cycle of changing distance of the Earth’s orbit from the sun. Closer to the sun, an interglacial, further away a glaciation. Nevertheless, the obsession with CO2 continues with many climate scientists suggesting the Milankovitch effect is very slight, and that the slight initial heating drives CO2 from the ocean, and that this CO2 then warms the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect, and that the atmosphere then warms the oceans further leading to more CO2 escape. Sounds like a chain reaction, but no it can’t be, because the warming eventually stops, and the CO2 is miraculously absorbed again by the oceans, which are cooling into the next glaciation. This complex explanation is implausible when compared to the simpler and more logical explanation that the cycle of warming and cooling is completely the result of the Milankovitch cycle, which first brings Earth closer to the sun, causing ocean heating and exsolution of CO2 from the warming seas, and which then causes Earth to retreat from the sun, cooling the oceans, thus enabling them to absorb the CO2 again as Earth enters another glaciation (just to remind everyone that a cold ocean will dissolve more CO2 than a warm ocean).
What may be the cause of modern warming, if it is not due to the greenhouse effect of our emissions? Again, I would point to the sun first and foremost. There are four different Milankovitch cycles, depending on (1) distance of Earth from the Sun due to eccentricity of its orbital path (ca. 100,000-year cycles), (2) tilt of Earth relative to the orbit (41,000-year cycles), and (3 and 4) precession (25,000- and 112,000-year cycles). The 100,000 year cycle operates because it moves the Earth closer then further away from the sun. The other cycles may result in more ocean being exposed to the sun, and they would reinforce each other if they became effective at the same time. I’m not aware of any deep investigation into whether or not the minor cycles may now be reinforcing the warmth of the present interglacial. This needs to be done (but not by me!!). Another option for increased warmth is a change in cloud cover. It has also been suggested that an increase in volcanic activity beneath the ocean surface could be a cause of heating. Opponents of that idea say that there is simply not enough volcanism taking place, but this does not properly take into account the fact that there is 65,000 kilometres of mid-ocean ridges in the oceans, and magma (which would be ca. 1,000 °C) is almost constantly being emplaced, or cooling off, in a zone that extends downwards several kilometres below the ridges themselves. This activity is often not accompanied by obvious lava eruptions on the ocean surface, and we simply don’t have enough observations or details about the thermal effects of this cryptic activity, which may possibly be episodic.
5. Plate tectonics
Even if we abandon the idea that CO2 is driving global warming, and instead look to the sun and the oceans for answers, we have not explained the major changes in climate through the Phanerozoic. Why three major periods of glaciation, including the present-day cold period? Geology would tell us that it is due to the distribution of continental masses and oceans on Earth’s surface. The present day glacial period can be related to the breakup of Pangea and later Gondwana. But first to the glacial period 300 million years ago. Supercontinent Pangea was formed at the end of the Carboniferous. My last research project was in NW France, where my French colleague Gérard Bossière and I proposed that the huge transcurrent faults of Armorica possibly represent thousands of kilometres of sideways movement along the collision zone of Laurentia (which was made up mainly of the north America craton) and Gondwana, leading to the formation of the supercontinent Pangea. Indeed, the positioning of Pangea over the south pole led to a major glaciation because warming of the polar region by the oceans was simply not possible.
Pangea eventually broke up with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean, and later Gondwana broke up with Antarctica becoming separated from South Africa, Australia, and India. Antarctica was positioned over the south pole, and the Arctic Ocean at the north pole became almost completely surrounded by continental material, isolating it from warmer ocean currents. Once the Drake Passage opened between South America and Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, swept along by the roaring forties, developed the circum-Antarctic current, which effectively isolates Antarctica from the warming influences of ocean currents coming from the tropics. Hence the development of the present-day bi-polar glaciation.
The Ordovician glaciation of 450 million years ago corresponds to a time when most continental masses encircled an ocean at the south pole, again inhibiting the warming of the polar area by warm ocean currents. Interestingly to me, some of the drop-stone deposits of that glaciation are found in NW France (Armorica), where I conducted my most recent research.
The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is pretty-well irrelevant to these arguments. Although measuring CO2 past levels is more difficult than measuring past Ts, there is a clear tendency for there to be more CO2 in the atmosphere when Earth is warm, and less when Earth is cold. The climate activists argue therefore that the warm periods are due to the high greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. But there are three problems with this. First, one has to ask where did the CO2 come from (a question seldom answered convincingly), secondly, we must remind ourselves that we don’t know if CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and thirdly, there is the much simpler explanation that plate tectonics controls climate, and that when Earth warms up CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise because it is expelled from the oceans, in accordance with Henry’s Law.
Certainly, everyone must be aware that climate change is normal for Earth, has always been taking place, and has never previously needed our emissions (hardly surprising, given we’ve only been around for a few 100,000 years).
6. Politics and climate activism
We are, as they say, all like sheep when it comes to fashion, cults, politics, and religion. I had believed that science didn’t suffer from this sheep-like behaviour. Unfortunately, not today. The sheep are all bleating “The science of climate change is settled”. Just goes to show that sheep are not scientists and do not understand the first thing about science. Science, by definition, is never settled. With regard to today’s politics and activism, I had never expected the science of climate change to become the focus of so much skullduggery and simple dishonesty.
Consider first what the scientists of the IPCC in the Assessment Report 6, Chapter 11, write on pages 1583–1585: “… there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC [tropical cyclone] intensity, frequency, and duration, and any observed trends in phenomena such as tornadoes and hail; … it is likely that the global frequency of TCs will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged, … there is low confidence in projections of small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail storms; and there is medium confidence that there will be a reduced frequency and a poleward shift of mid-latitude cyclones due to future anthropogenic climate change.”
The following table from Assessment Report 6 summarises this low confidence in any human influence on most aspects of climate change up to the present day.
Table 12.12 | Emergence of CIDs in different time periods, as assessed in this section. The colour corresponds to the confidence of the region with the highest confidence: white cells indicate where evidence is lacking or the signal is not present, leading to overall low confidence of an emerging signal.
Then contrast that with what is written in the Assessment Report 6 in the Summary for Policymakers (written by politicians):“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since Assessment Report 5.”
How dishonest is that?
Then consider the following from The Club of Rome, which acts as a Think Tank and Climate Consultant for the United Nations: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill”. Is this what has led to the world being taken over by climate alarmists, who exaggerate, distort, and falsify what is happening with climate change? And corrupt science in the process.
Then Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change said: “Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the economic system….This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to transform the economic development model for the first time in human history”.
Then from IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. It is not. It is actually about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth”.
Then consider that even the respected Sir David Attenborough has been accused of indulging in what has been termed “noble corruption” (telling lies for the noble cause of tackling climate change), as described in forensic detail by Susan Crockford in her book “Fallen Icon”.
Time for the media to front up and tell everybody about what’s going on. Time to re-learn how to think and discuss, understand what science is (never settled), and stop acting like sheep.
7. What should we do about agriculture and methane emissions?
The following is taken from the Centrist NZ News Hub
NZ climate scientist Kevin Trenberth questions the scientific basis for stringent methane reduction goals and has challenged the widely held belief that these emissions significantly contribute to global warming. He says, in a comment posted to the Newsroom story, that the moral panic surrounding New Zealand’s emissions, particularly related to methane, is scientifically unfounded.
In Trenberth’s response to Daalder’s analysis, he contends that New Zealand’s agricultural methane emissions have already reached a state of net-zero impact on climate change. Trenberth’s argument centres on the notion that methane emissions from livestock are part of a natural cycle. He explains that the methane emitted by cattle and land use basically represents a re-release of carbon dioxide that was temporarily stored in short-term grasses. This cyclical process, according to Trenberth, does not result in a net harm to New Zealand’s carbon dioxide targets. “The issue is that methane is so short lived that, in fact, NZ is already at “net zero” (with regards to) methane. The numbers of livestock have been stable enough since 2010 so the amounts emitted are completely compensated by the amounts oxidised to carbon dioxide.”
“Since the methane started out as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere before being taken up in grass, and then eaten by livestock, the process is circular. The main issues with methane are fossil methane from mining operations,” he says.
Trenberth describes the Newsroom analysis as “hokey” and that New Zealand’s stable livestock numbers since 2010 have led to a balance where the methane emitted is offset by the amount oxidised to carbon dioxide. Trenberth correctly points out that there are fewer livestock today than there was back then, further strengthening the argument that New Zealand methane emissions are already at net zero.
Kevin Trenberth is a well-known distinguished climate scientist, originally from Christchurch NZ, and now retired back to NZ. Given that he has always supported the idea that CO2 is an important driver of modern global warming, it is particularly significant that he is willing to speak out about the nonsense of trying to control the methane emissions of livestock. NZ government take note.
8. What comes next, climate wise?
Regardless as to what is forcing the present-day warming of the oceans, be it the sun and Milankovitch cycles or submarine volcanic activity, Earth will cool down again. If plate tectonics are the basic cause of the present-day glacial period, we will not escape from the present-day cold until Antarctica moves away from the south pole, and/or the circum-Antarctic ocean current is disrupted, and/or the Arctic Ocean is opened up to warmer ocean currents. Given that none of those things are likely to happen any time soon, I fear that we are destined to follow the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle into another intense glaciation. I have argued that our emissions are not at all responsible for the slight warming we are experiencing. We can emit as much CO2 as we like. It will not stop us entering that glaciation. That’s very very bad news, because all of Canada, most of northern Europe will become completely uninhabitable, and worst of all, CO2 contents of the atmosphere will plunge to dangerously low levels (but all that is probably 80,000 years away, when the height of the next glaciation is reached, and when sea levels are again 140 metres lower than today). If CO2 levels in the atmosphere fall below 150 ppm all life will probably be extinguished. That’s the existential danger we really face (but not in our children’s or grandchildren’s time!!).
Because they are finite resources, we must try to cut back on our use of fossil fuels, but there is no rush, and we could build the odd coal-fired power station whilst we decide how to provide enough energy and manage our resources in a more sustainable way. Forget about reaching net zero, forget about becoming a vegan to save the world, and stop telling our farmers how to manage the emissions of their livestock.
You don’t need a government agent to tell you what you want or when you want it.
Milton Friedman explained that “market processes” allow individuals to interact and exchange goods and services voluntarily. The prices they charge in these exchanges guide production and consumption decisions, ultimately leading to the most efficient resource allocations, maximized customer satisfaction, and increased purchasing power, and this all occurs with minimal need for government interference.
You don’t need a government agent to tell you what you want or when you want it.
Milton Friedman explained that “market processes” allow individuals to interact and exchange goods and services voluntarily. The prices they charge in these exchanges guide production and consumption decisions, ultimately leading to the most efficient resource allocations, maximized customer satisfaction, and increased purchasing power, and this all occurs with minimal need for government interference.
When it comes to electric vehicles, the absence of a “market process” has ignored consumers’ wants and needs and allowed consumer demand to be misinterpreted. Demand exists only when a consumer needs and/or wants a product and can afford it. However, when government mandates and subsidies push EVs instead of more desirable vehicles, we can’t tell if manufacturers are producing the optimal number of electric vehicles.
With the national debt ready to exceed $36 trillion, we know the federal government cannot continue spending recklessly. Whoever occupies the White House next will need to cut spending dramatically. We suggest they start by eliminating electric vehicle subsidies for producers and consumers.
Markets are sending strong negative signals on electric vehicles as American consumers are increasingly hesitant to purchase them. Government policies are, therefore, wasting tens of billions of dollars—soon, hundreds of billions or more—forcing this immature technology into a market where consumers are not ready to purchase.
Americans have many reasons to pause before purchasing an electric vehicle.
Consumer Confidence
A recent Gallup survey showed that only 7% of Americans owned an EV. A further 9% were seriously considering a purchase, 35% reported they would consider buying an EV, and 49% were not interested in an EV (this includes 1% who had no opinion). This survey revealed an 11% decline in customer demand for EVs since 2023. The Gallup polling compounded the fact that most EV owners own at least one additional internal combustion engine vehicle. According to Edmunds, 40% of all electric vehicle trade-ins were used as down payments to purchase an ICE vehicle in the second quarter of 2024.
Purchase Costs
Edmunds also reported that, in the first quarter of 2024, there was still a 42% gap between the average price of an electric and gasoline-powered car. That gap expands to 58.5% in the popular and relatively crowded SUV category. A compact electric SUV costs $53,048, while the equivalent ICE competitor’s manufacturers-suggested retail pricing is $35,722. The smallest gap in MSRP was 18% in the large pick-up truck sector, where EV pick-ups average $76,475.
Range Anxiety
Range Anxiety is the fear of running out of battery power before reaching a destination due to limited battery range or insufficient charging infrastructure. Other factors influencing range anxiety include knowledge of charging locations, charging times, battery degradation, and changes in performance relative to weather conditions.
Grid Capacity
EVs will strain an already overworked grid. Fleet charging requirements for larger batteries in delivery trucks and public transportation will compound this strain. Utilities will need to manage the complex timing and location of new EV charging infrastructure. Those complexities will be compounded by rushed transition timelines, like the Biden administration’s goal of EVs making up 67% of all new automobile sales in America by 2032. That burden will be compounded by the demand for electric power to supply AI, Bitcoin exchanges, and data centers.
Safety concerns and weather conditions
Major safety concerns for EVs orbit around the potential for increased damages during crashes caused by the increased weight of EVs over ICE vehicles. Additional concerns exist over the changing nature of vehicle fires associated with lithium-ion batteries. Fires can be sparked by defects in the battery system, causing flammable and toxic gases to be released, damage to the battery system from a crash, or exposure to salt water due to floods or hurricanes. Electric vehicles tend to perform inconsistently, especially in climates with a wide range of temperatures (extreme heat or cold).
Resale and/or trade-in value of EVs
The average American automobile, light truck or SUV, is 12.6 years old and rising, meaning the business for the U.S. aftermarket looks rosy. But, the prospect of purchasing a used EV causes concerns for many consumers. In 2024, electric vehicles are depreciating faster than ICE vehicles, and the ability to find a good service center to handle the list of growing maintenance needs is becoming more evident and costly. Finally, the realization that at trade-in, or the end of the useful life of an electric vehicle, its value could be negative. The notion of owning something that may have negative value is not endearing when considering a purchase.
Rental car companies around the world are sending a signal on EVs
Over the past few years, many rental car users have pushed back on driving an EV, forcing European and U.S. companies to reduce their EV fleets. These companies report high repair costs, poor resale value, lack of customer charging centers, and the learning curve it takes to educate first-time users.
Conclusion
This list of reasons why consumers are hesitant about EVs is not exhaustive, but it does provide some clear reasons that companies and government regulators are moderating strategies to transition. Without government mandates and subsidies, it is highly unlikely that even 50% of consumers would choose an EV by the government’s arbitrary date of 2032.
There is a market for electric vehicles, but government mandates and subsidies—regulators predicting winners and losers—cause more harm than good. By forcing technology into widespread use before it is ready for primetime, governments are causing consumers to resist EVs. Instead, government regulators should allow consumer demand, competition, and the “market process” to guide EV adoption.
Dr. Timothy G. Nash is director of the McNair Center at Northwood University.
Mr. Jason Hayes is director of Environmental Policy at the Mackinac Center.
Dr. Tom Rastin is a retired business executive from Ohio.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Below are maps of just the Large Catastrophic Events, where catastrophic inundations affected two or more basins:
The bottom panel is for Very Large events, affecting four or more basins. All told, they have identified a total of 589 catastrophic inundations, using documentary evidence, mostly since the 16thC when reliable records became generally available.
The 1617 floods were particularly severe, affecting both Catalonia and Valencia. As the paper notes, the floods were worse than any recorded modern times.
Historian Geoffrey Parker. in his book “Global Crisis” which researched the cataclysmic weather wrought during the Little Ice Age, notes that Catalonia suffered the “year of the flood” in 1617, after a month of continuous rain, followed by a four day downpour which washed away bridges, mills, drainage works, houses and even town walls.
Ten years later, Europe experienced its wettest summer for 500 years. And while Catalonia was hit by disastrous droughts in the 1640s, Andalusia had its wettest ever period between 1640 and 1643.
These floods and droughts in Spain were typical of the sort of extreme weather seen around the world, all caused by global cooling.
Green levies helping to support supposed cheap wind and solar power have soared in Labour’s Budget and will quickly add many hundreds of pounds to household electricity bills. This shock news is to be found in the details released by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Needless to say, no mention was made of the sudden subsidy spike in the Chancellor’s Budget Statement to Parliament.
Green levies helping to support supposed cheap wind and solar power have soared in Labour’s Budget and will quickly add many hundreds of pounds to household electricity bills. This shock news is to be found in the details released by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Needless to say, no mention was made of the sudden subsidy spike in the Chancellor’s Budget Statement to Parliament. But the detailed figures reveal that the levies are set to confiscate £16 billion a year from consumers from next year. This is equivalent to nearly £600 a household, but the situation is only likely to get much worse with the Mad Miliband committed to a 95% renewable grid within six years.
The problems don’t stop there. A renewable grid based on breezes and sun beams needs back-up when Mother Nature fails to co-operate. Earlier this week, the wind stopped blowing for a couple of days and minimal power was obtained from this source. The pretence that there is any realistic back up other than a secondary gas-based system is fading fast. Fintan Slye, the head of the operation controlling electricity supply into the grid, recently noted: “There will continue to be a significant amount of power plants in reserve for the cold, dull, windless weeks of winter, but they will run for limited periods.” To date we have yet to have sight of an official estimate of what all this might cost.
In the meantime, and it seems just for starters, British consumers have £16 billion to find every year, as the graph below compiled by Andrew Montford from Net Zero Watch shows.
The difference between OBR’s estimated cost of green levies in 2023 (red) and 2024 (blue).
Montford shows that the estimated cost of green levies (mostly renewables) has shot up in the last 18 months with estimates rising between 20% and 120%. In its report, the OBR blames the jump on the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme that compensates suppliers for low electricity prices but claws back money when rates rise above a certain level. Loosely-worded contracts seem to mean that money only flows one way into the pockets of the subsidy-hunting turbine owners. Montford notes that the OBR is “no longer pretending” that CfD contracts will be paying back to consumers “in the foreseeable future”.
The figures involved are staggering. Montford explains that 18 months ago the OBR was predicting that CfDs would save consumers nearly £10 billion between 2023-24 and 2028-29. However, six months ago, “they decided it would actually ‘cost’ us £9 billion. And today they have announced that it will cost us £12 billion”, he added. Faced with these figures, the general public may recall that one of the first actions of the incoming Labour Government was to abolish an annual winter fuel allowance for older people, saving just £1.5 billion. Some might observe that such a sum is little more than a rounding error in the fantasy world of green economics and subsidies.
The environmental levies cover a variety of green rackets from paying suppliers to produce uneconomic and environmentally unfriendly energy, to persuading consumers to buy inferior technologies. The investigative journalist Paul Homewood has been digging into the subsidy figures for years amid promises from politicians that “rapidly falling” wind power costs would bring bills tumbling down. “Now we know that was always a lie,” observed Homewood last year.
In fact, Homewood suggests, an even greater burden is being placed on U.K. electricity consumers. The feed-in tariff scheme that pays consumers for electricity generated from solar panels has been excluded by the OBR. Although the scheme is no longer open to new applicants, it is yet another subsidy and still costs almost £2 billion a year. The renewable heat incentive is another £1 billion plus boondoggle ignored by the OBR, while the climate change levy, added to business costs, chips in another £2 billion.
All in all, Homewood estimated last year that Net Zero taxes and levies were set to cost the British consumers almost £100 billion over the next six years. The Labour Budget just put that up by at least £25 billion. The Net Zero black hole gets bigger by the day.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environmental Editor.
One of the first things that the new administration can be expected to do will be to issue a report saying that global warming is nonsense. The last time that Trump was President, he met with Will Happer, the distinguished professor of physics at Princeton, prior to inauguration in order to get the report underway.
One of the first things that the new administration can be expected to do will be to issue a report saying that global warming is nonsense. The last time that Trump was President, he met with Will Happer, the distinguished professor of physics at Princeton, prior to inauguration in order to get the report underway. Unfortunately the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, had his ear and suggested that Republican women wouldn’t take kindly to global warming being killed off. So no report was issued and the good Professor Happer went back to Princeton. Global warming is still with us due to the baleful influence of Jared Kushner. Eight years have been lost.
No government on the planet has issued a report saying that global warming is a fiction; neither has any university. Global warming is the chief religion of the globalists. It is their moral cover for killing and tormenting the rest of us. Without global warming to justify their rules on gas stoves, vacuum cleaners and washing machines, they would just be psychopaths.
That’s the past. The report can be expected soon after inauguration. And that in turn will leave a vacuum in terms of energy policy. Don’t worry about President Trump’s promise to cut energy prices by at least half in his first year. Oil rig numbers are in a downtrend at the current oil price. Nobody is going to dig or drill faster without the oil price going up. The only reason the price of natural gas is low at the moment is because the tight oil wells in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico are increasing the ratio of gas to oil produced. That is a bad sign, not a good sign, because it means that the rate of reservoir pressure decline is increasing, in turn meaning that the rate of oil production from each well will decline faster.
So what is the big picture on energy? First of all, we know what not to do and that is add more solar panels and wind turbines. Our grandchildren won’t inherit those things; their fate is to be landfill. Fortunately the big tech companies have broken the logjam on small nuclear reactors and a nuclear renaissance is underway. In theory the Federal Government should stand aside and let the market sort out what is the best nuclear technology.
But there are a couple of things the new Trump administration could do speed things up and reduce risk for commercial operators which will ultimately result in faster adoption of new technology with lower prices for consumers.
Firstly, we need a third phase of synfuels research in the US. The first phase, in the late 1940s in Pike County, Missouri, was a Bergius plant making synthetic oil from coal. German engineers helped get it operating. The second phase resulted in the building of the Great Plains Synfuels Plant in Beulah, North Dakota in 1984. Unfortunately, at the time it was thought that the US had a natural gas shortage more than an oil shortage so it was optimised on producing synthetic natural gas. This was as a result of the Natural Gas Act of 1938. Price restrictions on natural gas were finally lifted by 1993, providing an incentive to find natural gas which in turn lowered prices, impacting the Beulah plant’s profitability. The plant has recently been optimised to make nitrogen fertilisers.
As an aside on the subject of fertilisers, in 2021 the country of Sri Lanka, in a fit of eco-religious ecstasy, ran an experiment in which synthetic fertilisers were banned. Rice production fell 30%, tea production fell 20% and vegetable production fell up to 40%. The government was overthrown and starvation narrowly avoided.
Why we need a third phase of synfuels research is that there are signs that tight oil production looks like it is about to tip over into decline. Once the oil price goes through $110 per barrel, plants converting coal to synthetic liquid fuels should become profitable. But it would be better to use hydrogen produced by electrolysis with power from nuclear reactors rather than steam-reforming part of the process stream. That would make our coal reserves last longer. And it hasn’t been done before because it has been assumed that coal would always remain cheap. With the bogeyman of carbon dioxide killed off, converting coal to diesel and gasoline will be the next big thing. Anyone with a coal deposit will effectively own an oil deposit of the same energy content, less the cost of conversion.
The second big thing that the Trump administration could do is build one or more demonstration plants for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. At the moment the nuclear power industry in the US produces 2,000 tons per annum of spent nuclear fuel per annum, adding to the current pile of 90,000 tonnes. The current dominant nuclear technology worldwide is U235-burning light water reactors. Which is wasteful in the extreme. Under that technology, uranium as dug out of the ground is processed to enrich the U235 content from 0.7% to 3.5%. What is left over is 86% of the original uranium which is effectively discarded as depleted uranium, now 99.8% U238. The only thing it is used for is depleted uranium antitank rounds, even though weight for weight, if bred to plutonium it will produce the same amount of energy as U235.
For the 14% of the uranium that makes it into fuel rods, only one thirtieth of that is burnt to produce energy. Which means that of the original mined uranium, a mere 0.4% is used to produce power. This process, which has been going on for decades, is incredibly wasteful. It is like killing cattle and only eating the tongue.
It has been assumed that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is expensive, more expensive than mining uranium at a yellowcake price up to perhaps $250/lb. But what SpaceX has shown private operators can replace some government monopolies for 10% of the latter’s operating costs. The solution may be as simple as putting the spent nuclear fuel through a molten salt reactor, producing power while separating out the actinides. We won’t know until we start and the important thing is to start early in 2025.
You must be logged in to post a comment.