Day: November 14, 2024

Our soaring reliance on foreign power exposes the great green energy scam

News that Britain now has the highest industrial energy prices in the world, has fallen out of the world’s top ten manufacturers, faces power rationing and is spending over £3bn a year to import electricity marks a damning indictment on a generation of flawed and misguided energy policies.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

News that Britain now has the highest industrial energy prices in the world, has fallen out of the world’s top ten manufacturers, faces power rationing and is spending over £3bn a year to import electricity marks a damning indictment on a generation of flawed and misguided energy policies.

As the world’s green A-listers gather this week in Azerbaijan for COP29, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is probably right to claim that the world increasingly looks at the British energy model; but I would argue it is more in bewilderment and curiosity rather than any desire to copy or follow it. Energy policies here have wreaked havoc on consumers and firms for a generation and there is no end in sight.

No more stark example of this failure exists than our growing overreliance on buying electricity from Europe. This results in energy jobs, security and expertise being offshored to our competitors; a policy which ultimately relies on spare supplies of electricity being available through interconnector cables.  But will these flows always be there as older power plants on the continent close?

According to new data, net imports of electricity totalled 26.3 terrawatt hours (TWh) from January to September which is a new record for the UK. This easily surpassed the previous high of 24.6TWh reached three years ago, but Britain has closed yet more power plants since then so the hole will likely be filled with yet more foreign supplies.  Last month, the country’s last big coal-fired power station closed and nuclear generation remains in consistent decline.  The bill for these imports is now running at £250m a month and regularly represents 20 per cent of total electricity supply.  Forecasts show imports could soon be supplying up to a third of our needs by 2030 and beyond.

Beware ministers who boast of Britain’s falling emissions from the energy sector; they won’t tell you about the overseas emissions connected with the electricity we now import but don’t appear on UK statistics; they claim they cannot measure it, so they ignore it.  Britain is offshoring its emissions, hiding them and hoping people won’t notice. 

In order to provide a proper understanding and long overdue analysis of energy policy failure it is important to understand and consider how we got here.  The failure of this most important national policy transcends governments since the turn of the century and represents one of the biggest failings in statecraft since World War Two.  The consequences are stark, ranging from the loss of our competitiveness, rising fuel poverty, chronic economic underperformance and becoming dangerously vulnerable to future energy crises.  And for what end?

Facts are important.  Between 2004 and 2021, before the war in Ukraine the industrial price of energy in Britain tripled in nominal terms (153%) or doubled relative to consumer prices. Electricity prices have doubled since 2019.   This has led to a huge slice of Britain’s manufacturing base already choosing to relocate overseas in search of lower costs.  Since 2010 over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost;  as a share of GDP, manufacturing has halved since the 1990s.

The writing was on the wall years ago following the Blair, Brown, Cameron and May government’s decision to slavishly follow EU diktat and start closing coal and oil-fired power stations without clear policies to build cleaner equivalent ones;  weather dependent windmills and solar panels could never fill the gap, especially if they are built faster than they can be connected to the grid.  The EU’s various power station directives, first supported by the Blair government forced the UK to start shutting key plants from 2012 before new ones were ready.  Coupled with this is the derisory ninety minutes Commons debate to enact the Net Zero 2050 law, arguably the most complex, far reaching and costly piece of legislation in post war history.

Britain’s ability to generate its electricity needs has been in decline since the 1990s, when it last enjoyed a power surplus.  Per capita electricity generation in the UK is now just two thirds of what it is in France and barely over a third of the US.  We now mirror developing countries like South Africa (which endures rolling blackouts) more than key competitors like Germany.   British businesses pay almost four times as much as American firms for each unit of power and households pay three times as much.

Primarily we must wean Britain off interconnectors and instead prioritise reliable home grown generation. This means turbo charging new nuclear stations which are already fifteen years late.  Britain’s last nuclear power plant at Sizewell B was completed nearly thirty years ago in 1995.  Thirty five years will have passed before the next one starts generating at Hinkley Point C.  Sixty years ago Britain had 21 nuclear reactors, compared to 19 in the rest of the world combined.  Global leadership in this sector was picked up by France which now generates 70 per cent of its power from its nuclear stations and is decarbonising whilst retaining competitive power prices.  France built no less than 40 nuclear plants between 1965 and 1985 and is now refurbishing and replacing older ones.  Today, British firms pay on average sixty per cent more for electricity than French ones.

Whitehall’s mountain of environmental red tape has added layer after layer of bureaucracy, thus deterring the most determined developer of new power plants, particularly new small modular reactors (SMRs).  Put simply, it is becoming harder and harder to build things in Britain particularly if you aren’t lucky enough to be a government owned or a subsidised company like HS2 Ltd.

A failing energy policy inflicts huge pain on households, industry and the wider economy.  It restricts energy investment and stunts job creation. We need to learn, understand and address how and why a generation of political leaders and civil servants have failed and continue to do so in this most critical area of policy.

This winter will see Britain import vast amounts of power to keep the lights on at a record cost. The platitudes around energy security are cruelly exposed by this growing insecurity and panicked short termism.  Crucially, ministers are never able to answer the key question, “When will bills begin to fall?” because they can’t.  But credible economic growth and productivity hangs on this key fact; without lower energy costs Britain will continue to stagnate and fall behind, meaning there is less money for key investment and public services.

At COP29 Britain is a global case study in what not to do. Consequently, Ed Miliband is undoubtedly doing the rest of the world a huge favour, irrespective of the pain and costs he continues to pile on business, industry and households at home.

Tony Lodge is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Policy Studies

Experts Warn: [Adjective] Climate Crisis Could Lead to [Dramatic Outcome] by [Year]

Climate Change Alarmist Mad Lib Template

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Climate Change Alarmist Mad Lib Template

Opening Paragraph:
In a recent report by [Organization Name], scientists have sounded the alarm about the [Adjective] effects of climate change. According to [Authority Figure’s Name/Title], if global temperatures rise by just [Small Number] degrees Celsius, we could see catastrophic impacts, including [Noun/Outcome], [Another Noun/Outcome], and even [Absurd Noun/Outcome].

Body Paragraph 1:
The report emphasizes that [Adjective] [Natural Phenomenon] are becoming more frequent and severe due to human activities, particularly the burning of [Fossil Fuel Name]. “[Adjective] weather events like [Specific Natural Disaster] are clear evidence that [Noun] is spiraling out of control,” said [Authority Figure’s Name], a [Prestigious Title/Profession] at [Institution Name].

Body Paragraph 2:
The consequences will be [Adjective] for vulnerable populations, particularly in [Developing Region/Geographic Area]. “[Vague Percentage]% of [Group of People] could face [Problem], while [Another Percentage]% will be affected by [Different Problem],” warns the report.

Proposed Solution Paragraph:
To prevent this [Adjective] future, [Organization Name] calls for immediate action, including [Vague Policy Recommendation], [Another Vague Recommendation], and [Virtue-Signaling Action]. “[Catchphrase or Buzzword] is no longer an option—it’s a necessity,” urged [Authority Figure’s Name].

Closing Paragraph:
If [Action] isn’t taken within the next [Short Time Frame], experts predict we will face [Adjective] consequences by [Year]. “The science is clear,” says [Authority Figure’s Name]. “We must act now to save [Abstract Concept] and ensure a [Virtue-Signaling Adjective] future for all.”

Optional Sidebar:
“10 [Adjective] Ways You Can Save the Planet:

  1. Stop using [Common Everyday Item].
  2. Cut your [Everyday Activity].
  3. [Virtue-Signaling Action].
  4. [Absurd Suggestion].
    (Repeat as necessary.)

The climate case of the century

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

From Climate Etc.

by Lucas Bergkamp

On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.

The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims.  Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.

Climate science

Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem.  In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.

The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.

Dangerous climate change

A case in point, the Court arrives at the alarmist conclusion that “the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time” and that the danger of climate change is great and even “life-threatening”. Based on the non-factual findings of fact and obligatory references to the Paris climate agreement, the Urgenda judgment and the Klimaseniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court confirmed a right to protection against “dangerous climate change.”

“Protection against dangerous climate change,” the Court says, “is a human right,” without any caveats or qualifications. Obviously, realizing this human right will be at the expense of all kinds of other human rights and interests, such as the right to (or interest in) reliable and affordable energy. Inevitably, the right to protection against “dangerous climate change” will harm the realization of other “sustainable development goals.” Although M&E had flagged these kinds of trade-offs extensively, the judges did not bother to deal with these implications of climate morality.

Dog whistle

This new human right must be respected not only by states, but also by large corporations, the Court found.  In civil liability law, this right translates into a duty of care for companies. According to the Court, the Paris goals require measures to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and to limit the supply of fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies should therefore consider “the negative impact on the energy transition when investing in the production of fossil fuels.”

With this line of reasoning, the judgment suggests that “saving the climate” legitimizes creeping expropriation of oil and gas companies. This dog whistle did not escape the attention of FoE’s lawyer, who has hinted at further legal proceedings to prevent the development, expansion and financing of oil and gas production, referring to forthcoming climate finance case against ING, the largest Dutch bank.

Reduction Percentage

FoE lost the case based on two lucid moments of the judges. FoE had demanded that Shell reduce scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. With regard to scope 1 and 2, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell had committed itself to this objective and is on track to achieve it, so that claim was rejected.

With regard to scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the law nor climate science sets specific reduction standards for a company such as Shell. The 45% invoked by FoE, the Court found, is only an “average global reduction in all sectors” that does not apply to each country and each business sector individually. Indeed, this point had been well explained in M&E’s submissions to the Court.

In this regard, the judgment serves as a dialogue between the courts and the climate movement. Climate science therefore knows what is expected of it: set reduction standards for the oil and gas sector and the courts (at least, the Dutch courts) will enforce them.

Effectiveness

The Court of Appeal also undermined FoE’s lawsuit by finding that the reduction order sought by FoE would be ineffective. This too had been explained in detail in M&E’s expert opinions. As the Court confirmed, there is no reason to believe that a reduction obligation imposed on a specific company will have any positive effect: if Shell sells less oil and gas, other suppliers will simply take its place and any “climate gain” will be illusory.

Progressive realization

In line with the human rights theory of ‘progressive realization’, the court-made right to protection against ‘dangerous climate change’ is slowly but surely being realized. Two steps forward, one step back: first governments, then companies, then a specific reduction percentage, and then no such percentage.

This week, it was a step back, but the District Court’s verdict in first instance has already had its effect. With that verdict in hand, many other lawsuits have been launched and the climate movement has been able to persuade the European Union to oblige companies to implement a “climate transition plan” in accordance with 1.5 degrees. Judges have learned rapidly how to play the political climate game.

Threat remains

This is the first climate ruling in the Netherlands that is favourable to citizens who are suffering under the ever-rising prices of energy and other products. M&E’s intervention has had its effect, as it demonstrated for the Court that there are other interests affected by these kinds of cases and that other valid perspectives on the issues generate dramatically different conclusions. Moreover, as the main reasons for denying FoE’s claims are rather factual in nature, it will be difficult to find a good angle to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which review only points of law.

A battle has been won, but the climate war will rage on. Activist NGOs will be able to derive new legal bases from the Court’s ruling for further climate cases.

NGOs for the people

To prevent that democracy is set aside and the people are subordinated to climate activists supported by the judiciary, interventions by NGOs that are sympathetic to the interests of citizens will continue to be essential. There is much enthusiasm around this idea, but the financing of the activities continues to be the biggest challenge.

All in all, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal is an important first step towards restoring rationality and balance in judicial decision-making in climate cases.  The rejection of the case against Shell will have ripple effects on many other climate cases throughout the world, and should cause the EU to rethink the obligation for companies to implement a climate transition plan consistent with 1.5C.

In all things climate, to use a Chinese proverb, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

Azerbaijan’s COP29 Speech: A Masterclass in Irony So Thick, It’s Flammable

COP29, the annual climate circus where the world’s leaders gather to wag fingers and wring hands over carbon emissions, is hosted in none other than Azerbaijan—a country whose economy runs on fossil fuels like a muscle car guzzling premium gas. Then comes the pièce de résistance: Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev steps up to the mic and declares oil and gas to be “God’s gift” to his nation.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

Picture this: COP29, the annual climate circus where the world’s leaders gather to wag fingers and wring hands over carbon emissions, is hosted in none other than Azerbaijan—a country whose economy runs on fossil fuels like a muscle car guzzling premium gas. Then comes the pièce de résistance: Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev steps up to the mic and declares oil and gas to be “God’s gift” to his nation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqd1rzw9r4o

You can’t make this up. It’s like hosting a vegan potluck and having the guest of honor arrive with a tray of prime rib.

The “Climate” Conference in an Oil Nation

Let’s start with the hilarious choice of venue. Azerbaijan is one of those countries where crude oil isn’t just a commodity—it’s practically a national sport. Hosting COP29 in Baku is akin to holding a Weight Watchers meeting in a donut shop. And yet, the global climate elites packed their bags and flew to the Land of Hydrocarbons to sit through speeches about how we’re all doomed unless we ban the very thing that keeps Azerbaijan afloat.

The irony was lost on precisely no one except, apparently, the COP29 organizers.

Aliyev’s Sermon on the Mount of Crude

When Aliyev took the stage, he didn’t just dip his toes in the hypocrisy pool; he cannonballed into it. Declaring that oil and gas are gifts from God, he essentially told the room of climate warriors, “Thanks for coming, but we’re going to keep drilling, pumping, and exporting, so deal with it.”

This would be like Jeff Bezos showing up at a workers’ rights conference to brag about Amazon’s record profits. The room probably smelled like burnt hypocrisy.

Aliyev even managed to throw a bit of shade at Europe, pointing out that their energy “security” conveniently overrides their green ambitions. Azerbaijan, he argued, is only meeting Europe’s insatiable demand for natural gas because, you know, someone has to keep the lights on over there. The subtext? “We’re saving you from freezing, so maybe chill with the climate scolding.”

The Absence of the Big Guns

Notably missing from the conference were key world leaders, a snub that suggests even they couldn’t stomach the irony. Or maybe they were too busy figuring out how to reconcile their Net Zero pledges with their growing reliance on oil-rich nations like Azerbaijan. Either way, the hypocrisy runs both ways.

When Europe inked a deal with Azerbaijan for natural gas supplies, it wasn’t exactly a secret handshake in the back room—it was a public admission that their climate goals are, at best, aspirational. Aliyev simply called them out on it, and honestly, good for him. If you’re going to play the game, at least own it.

Hypocrisy Dressed as Diplomacy

Let’s not pretend this was a one-sided farce. The Western delegates who flew to Baku in private jets to wag their fingers about emissions are no less hypocritical. There they sat, nodding politely as Aliyev defended fossil fuels while quietly hoping he keeps shipping that sweet, sweet natural gas their way. After all, what’s a little cognitive dissonance when there are energy crises to solve?

A Lesson in Contradictions

The entire event was a monument to the contradictions of modern climate policy. We’re told fossil fuels are evil—unless they’re coming from a strategically important ally, in which case they’re suddenly a necessary evil. We’re told to drive electric cars and install solar panels, while the people making these rules continue to jet around the globe to make deals with oil-exporting nations.

Aliyev’s speech at COP29 didn’t just highlight the irony; it poured crude oil on it and lit it on fire. And for that, we should thank him. His unabashed embrace of reality—even a self-serving one—was a refreshing break from the usual moralizing drivel.

The Takeaway

Azerbaijan hosting COP29 is the perfect encapsulation of why no one takes these climate conferences seriously anymore. They’re not about saving the planet; they’re about playing politics, appeasing donors, and virtue signaling on a global stage. Aliyev’s speech was a reminder that behind all the lofty rhetoric is a steaming pile of contradictions.

So here’s to Azerbaijan and its “God-given” oil and gas. At least they’re honest about where their bread is buttered—or in this case, where their pipelines are laid. COP29? A masterclass in irony, incompetence, and the kind of hypocrisy that makes you want to laugh and cry at the same time. Bravo.

Climate Realist Groups Propose TOP 10 Climate and Energy Action Items for President Trump

President-elect Donald Trump’s overwhelming electoral victory and his winning of the popular vote gives him a mandate to move forward with his agenda, not the least of which on the climate and energy deregulatory policies he promoted during his campaign.

From ClimateRealism

Editor’s Note: President-elect Donald Trump’s overwhelming electoral victory and his winning of the popular vote gives him a mandate to move forward with his agenda, not the least of which on the climate and energy deregulatory policies he promoted during his campaign.

In anticipation of Trump’s victory, a coalition of groups, among them the Heartland Institute, E&E Legal Institute, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Truth in Energy and Climate, and The American Energy Institute, assembled a list of 10 climate and energy actions Trump could begin implementing on day one to bring sound science and economics back to energy and climate policy.

Bloomberg News provided a cursory discussion and critique of these proposals in a story misleadingly titled, “Climate Skeptics Urge Trump to Boost Coal, Gut Federal Science.” While the proposals do boost coal, it does not gut science but rather proposes policies to improve it while getting America on track to energy dominance within the law. We at Climate Realism believe people should judge for themselves to determine the merits of the proposals, thus we present the TOP 10 list below unfiltered.

1. Paris Climate Treaty and Endangerment Finding. Determine that the Paris climate
agreement is properly a treaty (rather than a mere “Executive agreement”) that requires Senate ratification. Transmit the treaty to the Senate for its advice. This is will legally relieve the US of any and all obligations under the treaty until and unless the Senate formally ratifies it. Repeal the Obama/Biden EPA determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are threats to the public health and welfare (the “endangerment finding”).

2. EV mandate and California waiver. Repeal the Biden tailpipe rule/EV mandate and withdraw the California CO2 waiver that allows California to set tailpipe emissions and de facto national gas mileage standards. Request legislation clarifying that the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) pre-empts state regulation of fuel economy, including Clean Air Act waivers, and that clarifies that the Clean Air Act cannot be used to regulate CO2.

3. Green New Scam and Grid Security. Freeze all Inflation Reduction Act climate/energy spending pending review. Ask Congress to repeal all the energy subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act through budget reconciliation. For national and economic security purposes, bar electricity grid reliance on variable sources of electricity generation such as wind and solar.

4. Oil and Gas. Restore active federal oil and gas leasing on federal lands and offshore, including the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. Lifting moratoria on offshore drilling in areas put off limits by prior presidents. Reverse the Biden moratorium on federal leasing for coal mining. Streamline the permitting process for energy production. End the Biden moratorium on LNG export terminals.

5. Presidential Appointments. Appoint officials at federal agencies like EPA, Interior, DoE, FERC and other key agencies who will aggressively permit new oil and gas pipelines, LNG terminals and other infrastructure required for producing oil, gas and coal. Streamline the permitting process. Terminate all existing federal science advisory boards and reconstitute only the ones legally required. Appoint qualified and pro-energy individuals to the boards.

6. Offshore wind. Foreign offshore wind developers threaten consumers, endangered species, and iconic maritime communities whose prosperity depends on the fishing. The industrialization of fisheries by offshore wind development should be terminated by delisting unleased wind energy areas, revoking the “30×30” pledge, implementing a cumulative effects approach to planning, and developing a balanced interagency process not dominated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

7. Coal. Repeal all the anti-coal regulatory actions of the Biden administration and promote coal as a preferred means of producing electricity. Commence a review of related air quality regulations issued by EPA.

8. Litigation. Withdraw from, so as to terminate, industry litigation over Biden administration regulatory actions. Re-staff the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division attorneys who will zealously defend administration priorities.

9. Regulatory Reform. End regulatory agency use of the linear non-threshold model (LNT) for radiation and chemical risk assessment. Reinstate the EPA rule against the use of “secret science.” Request legislation to require that federal courts no longer defer to regulatory agencies on scientific matters.

10. Regulatory Burden. Request the REINS act be passed to require congressional authorization of regulations with a significant economic impact, including but not limited to those with an economic impact of $100 million or more.

Read the original document here.

November Wind Slump Has Led To A Strained Energy Supply In Germany…Bottlenecks Threaten

Wind power in Germany has reached a new low. Despite massive further expansion, wind power levels have fallen to their lowest level since 2014.

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

Over-reliance on wind and sun…

Citing montelnews, Blackout News here reports on the recent wind power slump experienced in Germany – due to stagnant weather conditions.

This winter’s energy supply for Germany looks bleak as experts warn of windless, sunless days ahead. Image: P. Gosselin 

Wind power generation, dropped to its lowest level since 2014 and oil power generation increased to its highest level in four weeks, reaching 700 MW.

The wind lull highlights the vulnerabilities posed by relying too much on wind and solar energy, especially in the wintertime when Germany sees very little sunshine while occasionally getting periods of little wind in times of high energy demand.

Electricity prices soared to 800 EUR/MWh.

The lack of wind power last week led to a tighter energy market in Europe, particularly in central and northern regions and caused a surge in electricity prices, especially in short-term markets. Prices reached a two-year high, exceeding 800 EUR/MWh!

As a result, there’s growing concern about the potential for similar price spikes in winter if wind conditions remain weak. Germany’s economy has been battered for years by its dubious energy policies adopted by its previous governments over the past 25 years.

Fear of supply bottlenecks 

Experts warn that wind power production is expected to be very low in the coming months, thus posing a threat of energy supply bottlenecks. As temperatures fall, energy demand, especially in France, is expected to rise significantly.

France can help only so much

France’s nuclear capacity can’t fully compensate for low wind power due to dependence on weather conditions. Germany has reduced its conventional power generation capacity by shutting down coal and nuclear plants and relies heavily on weather dependent power generation.

The implication for the coming winter is that Germany’s energy market faces a difficult period due to the combination of low supply and potentially high demand.

There’s a risk of energy shortages and rising prices in the coming months

Give Us $8 Trillion, Says COP29 President

Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister for Ecology, has let the cat out of the bag, demanding trillions to “fight climate change”.

None of this money, of course, will come from his country or developing countries. It will come from us.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

It was always about the money:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiDat8MJb0M

Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister for Ecology, has let the cat out of the bag, demanding trillions to “fight climate change”.

None of this money, of course, will come from his country or developing countries. It will come from us.

Meanwhile Azerbaijan’s President has made it crystal clear that his country will continue to exploit its “god-given” oil and gas reserves:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpqd1rzw9r4o

The War on Fertiliser Comes to Britain

Having made an excellent start in trying to make British citizens both colder and poorer, the Net Zero fanatics in the new Labour Government are turning their attention to making them hungrier. New taxes on agricultural fertiliser could add £150 million to the costs of local farmers faced with a choice of producing less food or raising prices.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Having made an excellent start in trying to make British citizens both colder and poorer, the Net Zero fanatics in the new Labour Government are turning their attention to making them hungrier. New taxes on agricultural fertiliser could add £150 million to the costs of local farmers faced with a choice of producing less food or raising prices. Such bravery in the governing Ship of Fools can only be admired. When President Gotabaya Rajapaka of Sri Lanka imposed a ban on similar fertiliser, the local harvest failed and he was forced to hightail it out of the country in a military jet ahead of an angry delegation of concerned citizens. One protester, G. P. Nimal, told the BBC that they wanted to put the Rajapakas in an open prison, “where they can do farm work”.

The U.K. Finance Minister has confirmed plans to levy a ‘carbon’ import duty on a number of vital supplies including fertiliser, cement and aluminium. The Daily Telegraph reports that the tax could be around £50 to £75 a tonne. It is not clear how much extra the farmers will have to pay since the tax applies to imports from countries that don’t load so-called carbon penalties on fertiliser production. Lord Fuller, Chairman of the liquid fertiliser firm Brineflow, suggests that farmers will have to bear an extra annual burden of £150 million.

The blow comes just weeks after the Government imposed an inheritance tax on farms starting at values of just £1 million. Many small family holdings may need to be sold in future, although they could find willing buyers with subsidy-loaded operations looking to blanket the countryside with unreliable giant wind turbines and solar panels. Wind farm operator Dale ‘how many bats have you killed today’ Vince might look to increase his land-based wind fleet in the wake of giving £5 million to the Labour party.

The world is rapidly moving towards some restoration of sanity and a realisation that it is impossible to live in any degree of comfort and security without hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, Britain finds itself under the control of one of the most extreme gangs of Net Zero fanatics on the planet. It says it all that the increasingly weird Sir Keir Starmer, U.K. Prime Minister, complete with his sidekick, the unhinged MilliVolt, is the only world leader from a major economy to turn up at the Trump-wrecked COP29. The rupture of the Right at the last General Election, caused by past leaders such as Boris Johnson embracing or accepting extreme Net Zero, open borders and virulent woke policies, led to a new Labour Government. It collected a huge loveless Parliamentary landslide on a vote total less than that achieved by its defeated Marxist leader in 2019.

At the Daily Sceptic we frequently make the point that if you want to understand what the extremists are planning, look at what they write. U.K. FIRES is a group of green academic activists and is funded with a £5m grant from the previous Conservative Government. It takes an “absolute” view of Net Zero, as do many fanatics, and the table below shows what it means. By 2050 there will be no hydrocarbons in use. This means no flying or shipping. Heating will consume only 60% of current use, while energy for cooking and transporting food will be reduced by 60%. Materials for building will be almost non-existent.

The war on food and farmers fits nicely into this planned scenario. The widespread use of nitrogen fertilisers has led to soaring crops yields around the world and has helped alleviate famine in many developing countries. This has been helped by a recent 14% increase in plant growth caused by higher levels of carbon dioxide. Such is the crucial importance of these fertilisers, there are fears of billions of people dying if their availability is restricted. But natural gas and nitrogen are used in the process of making these essential farming aids, and nitrous oxide is created as a byproduct. This seems to be enough for a generation of maniacs to push back on their use and risk mass death and starvation on a global scale. Add in the virtue-signalling about ‘rewilding’, a plan to further curtail food production, and the introduction of bug diets and widespread ‘organic’ farming, and it is difficult to see how these people will feed the world, let alone half of it. One of the original founders of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore is in little doubt about what will happen if hydrocarbons are removed from food production. He recently told Fox News: “If we ban fossil fuels, agricultural production would collapse. People will begin to starve, and half the population will die in a very short period of time.”

Of course the fear about nitrous oxide is overdone for the usual political purposes. The gas is one of the so-called ‘greenhouse’ gases with atmospheric warming properties, but there is very little of it in the atmosphere and amounts have varied greatly over time. A group of four scientists recently noted that N2O is growing at only 0.00085 parts per million per year, and might contribute an almost unmeasurable 0.064°C of warming over 100 years.

For this the death cultists plan for mass starvation and population extinction, a process unfortunately alive and kicking in the United Kingdom.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

‘Animal Protein Overconsumption’: UN Climate Confab Attendees Urge Countries To Implement Tax On Meat

The True Animal Protein Price (TAPP) Coalition gave comments at the 2024 U.N. Climate Change (COP29) Conference Monday urging countries to begin taxing meat.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Owen Klinsky
Contributor

The True Animal Protein Price (TAPP) Coalition gave comments at the 2024 U.N. Climate Change (COP29) Conference Monday urging countries to begin taxing meat.

The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) issued a report Friday weighing the pros and cons of a tax on certain foods, including meat. TAPP Coalition raised the topic at COP29 this week, suggesting that countries should tax meat and subsidize vegetables while describing the U.S. and some Western nations as a “laggard” relative to other U.N. countries when it comes to its food pricing policies. (RELATED: Wagyu Burgers, Asian-French Fusion And More: Here’s What’s On The Menu At The UN Climate Confab)

“We believe that COP29 and UNFCCC [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] conferences thereafter can only be successful if the closing statement includes transitioning away from animal protein overconsumption according to national or global dietary guidelines by implementing greenhouse gas emission pricing mechanisms in agri-food systems,” Willem Branten, public affairs and policy officer at TAPP, said at the conference this week. “We urge the EU Commission, the OECD and China to lead the way towards these harmonized pricing mechanisms.”

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez Instructs Americans To Eat Fewer Hamburgers https://t.co/pmipzEBXoY pic.twitter.com/HbIWNgvpQ6

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) February 22, 2019

TAPP also urged member countries to subsidize vegetables and provided an “update” on the “UN Member State frontrunners and laggards of food pricing climate policies,” accusing the U.S., Australia, Canada and the UK of falling behind in their efforts to implement “dietary shifts,” while lauding Switzerland, Denmark and the EU Commission for their efforts.

COP29 kicked off Monday in Baku, Azerbaijan — a Caucasian petrostate that nonprofit Amnesty International accused of violating international humanitarian law by implementing a blockade in 2022 that created food shortages in Armenia. A study published in the journal Communications Earth and Environment discovered an increase in private jet usage associated with U.N. climate summits like COP.

President Joe Biden decided not to attend the event this year, instead sending a delegation of senior energy officials such as White House adviser John Podesta and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm in his stead. Afghanistan, meanwhile, has sent representatives to the event for the first time since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

TAPP did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Day 2: Azerbaijan President says fossil fuels a “Gift from God”, UN parades world leaders

Day two of the UN Conference of the Parties meeting (COP 29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, saw numerous heads of state roll into town to pay homage to he global warming cause. In all, some 100 world leaders were represented, with many ushered into the main plenary stage to deliver short testimonials on how their nation is on course to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, long before which they will be out of office or dead.

From CFACT

By Craig Rucker

Day two of the UN Conference of the Parties meeting (COP 29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, saw numerous heads of state roll into town to pay homage to he global warming cause. In all, some 100 world leaders were represented, with many ushered into the main plenary stage to deliver short testimonials on how their nation is on course to reach carbon neutrality by 2050, long before which they will be out of office or dead.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres set the tenor of the event by focusing on what many, particularly in the developing world, flew all this way in their gas-guzzling jets to discuss: Money. “Developing countries must not leave Baku empty-handed. A deal is a must and I’m confident it will be reached… On climate finance, the world must pay up, or humanity will pay the price,” Guterres said to applause.

Notably absent from this high-brow affair were major world leaders from China, India, Germany, France, Canada and the U.S.A., the nations that would most likely “pay up” as Mr. Guterres demanded. Instead, the list mostly included smaller nations such as Morrocco, Congo, Kenya, Tuvulu and the Bahamas; in other words, countries that would be on the cash-receiving end.

There were exceptions. Great Britain’s new Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, made his climate debut appearance at COP 29. He showed up specifically to announce his country’s determination to rid itself of energy abundance. Taking his turn on stage, he boasted that “In the first 100 days of this government….We scrapped the ban on onshore wind…We committed to no new North Sea oil and gas licenses… [and] we closed the UK’s final coal power plant at the end of September.”  In their place he said they would commit to more green energy, and finished his remarks with a bang by announcing that by 2035 the UK will “reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% on 1990 levels.”

Spain’s President Pedro Sanchez also spoke, pinning climate change as culpable for his nation’s recent flooding that left 220 dead; as did Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, who pledged more financial assistance to developing countries to help them “strengthen adaptation and build resilience” to climate impacts.

Not all were amused, however, by the UN’s showcase of international pomp and show.

A group called CARE, which works on global poverty, complained about the gender mix which contained too much testosterone onstage. “Women and girls bear the brunt of the climate crisis and often design the solutions, yet only 8 out of the 78 world leaders participating in COP29 are women,” the group noted in a press release. “While the Conference of Parties (COP) strive to be an inclusive summit, the negotiation table remains far from diverse.”

Other malcontents, like the nation of Paupau New Guinea, didn’t even show up to criticize the event, as they bailed out before it took place. “There’s no point going if we are falling asleep because of jet lag because we’re not getting anything done,” Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko said. “COP is a total waste of time.”

Perhaps the most newsworthy event of Day 2 in Baku, however, was not what was scripted onstage by the UN hierarchy, but what was said by the President of the host country of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev.

He greeted the delegates in his opening remarks by saying oil and gas a “gift from God”, and then went on to praise fossil fuel use and slam critics of his nation’s export of gas and oil to build its economy.

“Fake news media of the country which is (the) number one oil and gas producer in the world and produces 30 times more oil than Azerbaijan, call us ‘petrostate’,” President Aliyev said. “They better look at themselves.” He also took aim at “so-called independent NGOs and some politicians, as if (they) were competing in spreading disinformation and false information about our country”.

These remarks, needless to say, made some on the Left go ballistic. Martin Kaiser, head of Greenpeace Germany, described the statement as a ‘‘slap in the face’’. “For all those who are already suffering from the consequences of climate change, such as the Pacific island states. The scientific community is unanimous: in order to prevent the worst effects of global warming, no more new coal, oil and gas extraction projects should be built,” he said.

To be sure, it was an eventful day 2 at COP 29. Stayed tuned for more updates from CFACT in Azerbaijan coming soon.