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.
Campaign group Net Zero Watch has condemned the renewables industry rip-off of electricity consumers. New data published by the Renewable Energy Foundation reveals that the cost of paying windfarms to switch off soared by 91% in 2024. These payments are necessary when the grid has insufficient capacity to deliver the power to market. Nearly £400 million was paid to windfarms in 2024, and much more than this in indirect costs
Campaign group Net Zero Watch has condemned the renewables industry rip-off of electricity consumers. New data published by the Renewable Energy Foundation reveals that the cost of paying windfarms to switch off soared by 91% in 2024. These payments are necessary when the grid has insufficient capacity to deliver the power to market. Nearly £400 million was paid to windfarms in 2024, and much more than this in indirect costs [1].
The largest single recipient was Seagreen, a new windfarm off the coast of Angus, which received nearly £200 million in these so-called “constraint payments”.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The Renewable Energy Foundation suggest that Seagreen is making around £270 for each megawatt hour it actually produces, more than three times market averages, because it’s so lucrative to be switched off. This is a truly obscene rip-off of the consumer.
And Mr Montford warned that the situation will become worse.
Windfarms seem to be being deliberately built in Scottish waters, where they will receive lucrative payments to be switched off.
And there are huge numbers of new windfarms planned for Scottish waters, where they will be just as constrained. So the rip-off is only going to get worse.
Note
[1] When windfarms have to switch off, their customers still need power, so it is necessary to pay a gas-fired power station to switch on to meet demand.
This is an update to some articles that were published early in 2024 about the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) proposed Amendments to Part 490, Projected Sea Level Rise (Amendment). Kip Hansen wrote a post entitled New York State Sea Level Rise: Fantasy as Law.
On September 22, 2014, the Community Risk and Resiliency Act was signed into law — Chapter 355 of the Laws of 2014 (CRRA). CRRA is intended to ensure that decisions regarding certain State permits and expenditures consider climate risk, including sea-level rise. Among other things, CRRA requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (Department) to adopt regulations establishing science-based State sea-level rise projections. Therefore, the Department proposed a new 6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-Level Rise (Part 490). Part 490 establishes projections of sea-level rise in three specified geographic regions over various time intervals but does not impose any requirements on any entity. An amended Part 490 was adopted in September 2024 with no revisions to the draft released for public comment in January 2024.
Kip Hansen summarized New York sea level rise history and the DEC projections in detail in his post. What you need to know here is that New York City’s Sea level has been increasing 3 mm per year over 167 years. Enough of that observed increase is caused by local subsidence so that the remainder is “very close to the standardly cited Global Sea Level Rise figure for the 20th Century of 1.7 or 1.8 mm/yr. (Opinions vary – see NOAA here.)” Kip explains that the projected increases included in the Amendment” have not been seen in the decade since the 2014 update report and based on the historical record, are extremely unlikely to be seen in the near future.” He points out that “all the projections, in the Amendment, in the NYSERDA 2014 report and in the NYS Climate Assessment require doubling and tripling of long-term sea-level rise rates in New York City.”
RCP8.5 Comments
Kip, Anthony, and I agree that the projections are flawed because the methodology estimates an unrealistically high projected sea-level dependent upon an impossible climate model scenario. Depending upon which version of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report being used the modeling scenarios are known either as a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) or Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP). The RCP-8.5 scenario has been debunked by many as Anthony reported here and here. My comments focused on the misuse of RCP-8.5 using some of those references and adding others.
The Amendment revises the projections of future sea-level rise required by New York regulations.
I raised the RCP-8.5 concerns in the pre-proposal draft of the amendment. The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) uses the label SSP5-8.5 for this scenario and admits that those emission scenarios are implausible:
The Department acknowledges that current GHG emissions policies would result in actual emissions lower than projected by SSP5-8.5. Thus, the inclusion of higher projections of sea level rise, especially those based on SSP5-8.5, could lead to consideration of conditions that are unlikely to occur, at least in the more immediate future.
So how did DEC justify the continued use of SSP5-8.5? The RIS goes to considerable lengths to justify its use with statements like the following: “Unfortunately, current literature does not provide a basis for assessment of the emissions levels at which ice shelf and marine ice cliff instability, important factors in sea level rise in high emissions scenarios, such as SSP5-8.5, become significant.”
Response to RCP8.5 Comments
DEC is required to respond to submitted comments. The Assessment of Public Comments document addressed my arguments in their response to Comment 6. They summarized my concerns saying that “SSP5-8.5 is not plausible, and model outputs based on this SSP, including the rapid ice melt scenario, should not be included in the projections.” The reply stated:
Response to Comment 6: DEC has described its rationale for including SSP5-8.5 model outputs in its projections, including the rapid ice melt scenario, in the RIS. To summarize here, the emission-reduction gap noted above, uncertainties in the causal chain to sea level heights, including ice cliff and ice shelf stability, and reports of accelerating Antarctic and Greenland ice loss reduce confidence that SLR will be limited to the levels projected by SSP2-4.5 models. The CIA methodology report (p. 21) provides additional rationale for including projections based on SSP5-8.5:
• Continuity with previous New York State projections, which were based on representative concentration pathways with the same end-of-century radiative forcing.
• Stakeholder interest in these projections, based on CIA Needs Assessment.
• Value of identifying a broad range of plausible outcomes.
• Current climate impact models’ underestimation of plausible outcomes when driven by only moderate GHG forcing.
DEC maintains that inclusion of high, albeit unlikely, projections to enable consideration of the consequences of low-probability but high-consequence events to be the more prudent alternative to limiting projections to those based on SSP2-4.5.
The crux of my disagreement is the value of incorporating what is essentially an impossible scenario. All the reasons cited attempt to justify what is essentially an executive decision to perpetuate the narrative that there is an existential threat of climate change exemplified, in this case, by extraordinary sea-level rise projections.
It is telling that the response claims that the extreme projections are included because of “Stakeholder interest in these projections, based on CIA Needs Assessment.” New York State agencies love to claim that they have a robust stakeholder process. However, the stakeholder process operates with a loaded deck. The New York Research & Development Authority (NYSEDA) CIA Needs Assessment Steering Committee is a relevant example. The report states “The assessment has been guided by a Steering Committee of climate scientists, assessment experts, and representatives from nonprofit organizations and state and municipal government agencies.” I am very critical of the review process because I know that there is immense pressure to adhere to the narrative within NYSERDA and I am sure no one skeptical of the extreme impact narrative was allowed anywhere near the Steering Committee. In addition, technical analyses performed for NYSERDA will not be funded in the future if the answers do not support the narrative.
Another reason given for using the impossible scenario is the “value of identifying broad outcomes”. In this instance I think the value is primarily for the “scare the bejesus out of the populace” narrative needed to perpetuate the story that New York politicians are here to save the planet even in the face of increasingly obvious enormous costs, threats to reliability, and inevitable reduction in personal choice. This will only stop when there is a change in the political balance of New York.
Conclusion
Surprising no one, their Assessment of Public Comments blew off our concerns. There is no reasonable defense for using RCP-8.5. As long as New York State continues to claim they follow the science but ignore it when it is inconvenient, the more likely the rush to the bottom will become a death spiral.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other organization with which he has been associated.
Ponder for a moment how intrinsically unsuitable, maladapted, and worthless wind turbines are to a grid. Their failure is so comprehensive, multifaceted and inevitable, an entirely new and bizarre market was invented to reward their failures. Even when they generate electricity, if the time is wrong, the demand is low, or the network can’t handle it, they will still be paid.
Subsidy farms are designed to suck payments from plumbers, bakers and mums and dads.
When failure becomes a commodity…
Ponder for a moment how intrinsically unsuitable, maladapted, and worthless wind turbines are to a grid. Their failure is so comprehensive, multifaceted and inevitable, an entirely new and bizarre market was invented to reward their failures. Even when they generate electricity, if the time is wrong, the demand is low, or the network can’t handle it, they will still be paid. The grid can’t use the power, but the customer still gets slugged for something they didn’t use, or they couldn’t get. In the UK the costs for this useless power grew to nearly £400 million last year.
The largest provider of useless power was SeaGreen wind plant which made nearly twice as much from being “constrained” than from being of service. The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) reports that SeaGreen earned £100 million for making electricity, and £200 million for being “constrained”. Effectively, the useful electricity it made costs a shocking £2.70 a kilowatt hour, after the other payments are included.
Obviously, when the government rewards failure, the market responds by planning to fail. It follows then that industrial wind plant developers would be bonkers if they weren’t looking for sites where their output would arrive at the worst possible time, or through the most remote and overloaded corner of the network.
Everything about the wind industry has “Rent Seeker” tattooed all over it.
Campaign group Net Zero Watch has condemned the renewables industry rip-off of electricity consumers. New data published by the Renewable Energy Foundation reveals that the cost of paying windfarms to switch off soared by 91% in 2024. These payments are necessary when the grid has insufficient capacity to deliver the power to market. Nearly £400 million was paid to windfarms in 2024, and much more than this in indirect costs [1].
The largest single recipient was Seagreen, a new windfarm off the coast of Angus, which received nearly £200 million in these so-called “constraint payments”.
Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford said:
The Renewable Energy Foundation suggest that Seagreen is making around £270 for each megawatt hour it actually produces, more than three times market averages, because it’s so lucrative to be switched off. This is a truly obscene rip-off of the consumer.
Windfarms seem to be being deliberately built in Scottish waters, where they will receive lucrative payments to be switched off.
And there are huge numbers of new windfarms planned for Scottish waters, where they will be just as constrained. So the rip-off is only going to get worse.
[1] When windfarms have to switch off, their customers still need power, so it is necessary to pay a gas-fired power station to switch on to meet demand.
SeaGreen wind plant has about 114 towers in the ocean east of Scotland. It could make about 1 gigawatt in theoretical capacity if all the turbines were working, but its actual load factor was a pathetic 14%. Of course, as a subsidy farm, it’s load factor was 200%.
Imagine a coal plant that earned money every time it had to slow down because customers weren’t using as much electricity as the power plant could have made?
A recent question was posed on Quora: Say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change. Assume climatologists have mastered each variable to a near perfect accuracy of 95%. How accurate would a climate model built on this simplified system be? Keith Minor has a PhD in organic chemistry, PhD in Geology, and PhD in Geology & Paleontology from The University of Texas at Austin. He responded with the text posted below in italics with my bolds and added images.
I like the answers to this question, and Matthew stole my thunder on the climate models not being statistical models. If we take the question and its assumptions at face value, one unsolvable overriding problem, and a limit to developing an accurate climate model that is rarely ever addressed, is the sampling issue. Knowing 15 parameters to 99+% accuracy won’t solve this problem.
The modeling of the atmosphere is a boundary condition problem. No, I’m not talking about frontal boundaries. Thermodynamic systems are boundary condition problems, meaning that the evolution of a thermodynamic system is dependent not only on the conditions at t > 0 (is the system under adiabatic conditions, isothermal conditions, do these conditions change during the process, etc.?), but also on the initial conditions at t = 0 (sec, whatever). Knowing almost nothing about what even a fraction of a fraction of the molecules in the atmosphere are doing at t = 0 or at t > 0 is a huge problem to accurately predicting what the atmosphere will do in the near or far future. [See footnote at end on this issue.]
Edward Lorenz attempted to model the thermodynamic behavior of the atmosphere by using models that took into account twelve variables (instead of fifteen as posed by the questioner) and found (not surprisingly) that there was a large variability in the models. Seemingly inconsequential perturbations would lead to drastically different results, which diverged (euphemism for “got even worse”) the longer out in time the models were run (they still do). This presumably is the origin of Lorenz’s phrase “the butterfly effect”. He probably meant it to be taken more as an instructive hypothetical rather than a literal effect, as it is too often taken today. He was merely illustrating the sensitivity of the system to the values of the parameters, and not equating it to the probability of outcomes, chaos theory, etc., which is how the term has come to be known. This divergence over time is bad for climate models, which try to predict the climate decades from now. Just look at the divergence of hurricane “spaghetti” models, which operate on a multiple-week scale.
The sources of variability include:
♦ the inability of the models to handle water (the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not CO2) and processes related to it. ♦ e.g., models still can’t handle the formation and non-formation of clouds. ♦ the non-linearity of thermodynamic properties of matter (which seem to be an afterthought, especially in popular discussions regarding the roles that CO2 plays in the atmosphere and biosphere), and ♦ the always-present sampling problem.
While in theory it is possible to know what a statistically significant number of the air and water molecules are doing at any point in time (that would be a lot of atoms and molecules!), a statistically significant sample of air molecules is certainly not being sampled by releasing balloons twice a day from 90 some odd weather stations in the US and territories, plus the data from commercial aircraft, plus all of the weather data from around the World. Doubling this number wouldn’t help, i.e wouldn’t make any difference. Though there are some blind spots, such as northeast Texas that might benefit from having a radar in the area. So you have to weigh the cost of sampling more of the atmosphere versus the 0% increase in forecasting accuracy (within experimental error) that you would get by doing so.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that the NWS (National Weather Service) is actually doing pretty good job in their 5-day forecasts with the current data and technologies that they have (e.g., S-band radar), and the local meteorologists use their years of experience and judgment to refine the forecasts to their viewing areas. The old joke is that a meteorologist’s job is the one job where you can be wrong more than half the time and still keep your job, but everyone knows that they go to work most, if not all, days with one hand tied behind their back, and sometimes two! The forecasts are not that far off on average, and so meteorologists get my unconditional respect.
In spite of these daunting challenges, there are certainly a number of areas in weather forecasting that can be improved by increased sampling, especially on a local scale. For example, for severe weather outbreaks, the CASA project is being implemented using multiple, shorter range radars that can get multiple scan directions on nearby severe-warned cells simultaneously. This resolves the problem caused by the curvature of the Earth as well as other problems associated with detecting storm-scale features tens or hundreds of miles away from the radar. So high winds, hail, and tornadoes are weather events where increasing the local sampling density/rate might help improve both the models and forecasts.
Prof. Wurman at OU has been doing this for decades with his pioneering work with mobile radar (the so-called “DOW’s”). Let’s not leave out the other researchers who have also been doing this for decades. The strategy of collecting data on a storm from multiple directions at short distances, coupled with supercomputer capabilities, has been paying off for a number of years. As a recent example, Prof. Orf at UW Madison, with his simulation of the May 24th, 2011 El Reno, OK tornado (you’ve probably seen it on the Internet), has shed light on some of the “black box” aspects to how tornadoes form. [Video below is Leigh Orf 1.5 min segment for 2018 Blue Waters Symposium plenary session. This segment summarizes, in 90 seconds, some of the team’s accomplishments on the Blue Waters supercomputer over the past five years.]
Prof. Orf’s simulation is just that, and the resolution is around ~10 m (~33 feet), but it illustrates how increased targeted sampling can be effective in at least understanding the complex, thermodynamic processes occurring within a storm. Colleagues have argued that the small improvements in warning times in the last couple of decades are really due more to the heavy spotter presence these days rather than case studies of severe storms. That may be true. However, in test cases of the CASA system, it picked out the subtle boundaries along which the storms fired that did go unnoticed with the current network of radars. So I’m optimistic about increased targeted sampling for use in an early warning system.
These two examples bring up a related problem-too much data! As commented on by a local meteorologist at a TESSA meeting, one of the issues with CASA that will have to be resolved is how to handle/process the tremendous amounts of data that will be generated during a severe weather outbreak. This is different from a research project where you can take your data back to the “lab”. In a real-time system, such as CASA, you need to have the ability to process the volumes of data rapidly so a meteorologist can quickly make a decision and get that life-saving info to the public. This data volume issue may be less of a problem for those using the data to develop climate models.
So back to the Quora question, with regard to a cost-effective (cost-effect is the operational term) climate model or models (say an ensemble model) that would “verify” say 50 years from now, the sampling issue is ever present, and likely cost-prohibitive at the level needed to make the sampling statistically significant. And will the climatologist be around in 50 years to be “hoisted with their own petard” when the climate model is proven to be wrong? The absence of accountability is the other problemwith these long-range models into which many put so much faith.
But don’t stop using or trying to develop better climate models. Just be aware of what variables they include, how well they handle the parameters, and what their limitations are. How accurate would a climate model built on this simplified system [edit: of 15 well-defined variables (to 95% confidence level)] be? Not very!
My Comment
As Dr. Minor explains, powerful modern computers can process detailed observation data to simulate and forecast storm activity. There are more such tools for preparing and adapting to extreme weather events which are normal in our climate system and beyond our control. He also explains why long-range global climate models presently have major limitations for use by policymakers.
Footnote Regarding Initial Conditions Problem
What About the Double Pendulum?
Trajectories of a double pendulum
A comment by tom0mason at alerted me to the science demonstrated by the double compound pendulum, that is, a second pendulum attached to the ball of the first one. It consists entirely of two simple objects functioning as pendulums, only now each is influenced by the behavior of the other.
Lo and behold, you observe that a double pendulum in motion produces chaotic behavior. In a remarkable achievement, complex equations have been developed that can and do predict the positions of the two balls over time, so in fact the movements are not truly chaotic, but with considerable effort can be determined. The equations and descriptions are at Wikipedia Double Pendulum
Long exposure of double pendulum exhibiting chaotic motion (tracked with an LED)
But here is the kicker, as described in tomomason’s comment:
If you arrive to observe the double pendulum at an arbitrary time after the motion has started from an unknown condition (unknown height, initial force, etc) you will be very taxed mathematically to predict where in space the pendulum will move to next, on a second-to-second basis. Indeed, it would take considerable time and many iterative calculations (preferably on a super-computer) to be able to perform this feat. And all this on a very basic system of known elementary mechanics.
With the UKHSA issuing an Amber Alert for winter weather in the next few days, our wonderful NHS thought people needed to be told how to cope!
Top tips for staying safe
There are a host of things that people can do to reduce the risk of falling ill during periods of cold weather. Spreading sand or salt on icy surfaces on driveways, garden paths, and steps can help. Dressing for the cold weather, wearing layers, shoes that have a good grip and gloves to protect your hands in case falls do happen.
Having a small supply of basic medicines, such as paracetamol, plasters, and indigestion remedies, is another way to manage minor illnesses or injuries at home, with community pharmacy teams able to offer advice on what to have a home.” People looking for health advice are urged to use community pharmacies and NHS 111 online or you can call 111. You can find your nearest pharmacy here: Find a pharmacy – NHS (www.nhs.uk) Other advice to help stay healthy this winter, includes:
Heat your home to a temperature that’s comfortable for you. If you can, this should be at least 18°C in the rooms that you regularly use, such as your living room and bedroom.
If you’re feeling cold, drink hot drinks regularly.
Try not to sit still for more than one hour at a time. Moving even a little bit can help you to keep strength and mobility.
Eating and drinking enough is also important. If you are finding it difficult to prepare and eat three big meals, try smaller ones throughout the day.
A good idea is to draw your curtains in the evenings to reduce heat loss through windows, and tuck long curtains behind radiators so that heat isn’t trapped. And make sure warm air can circulate by keeping radiators and heaters clear – don’t put furniture in front of them or dry washing on them.
As the winter months are drawing in, look after your mental health as well as your physical health go to Every Mind Matters for advice.
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.
2024 Sets New Record for Warmest Year In Satellite Era (Since 1979)
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
As seen in the following ranking of the years from warmest to coolest, 2024 was by far the warmest in the 46-year satellite record averaging 0.77 deg. C above the 30-year mean, while the 2nd warmest year (2023) was +0.43 deg. C above the 30-year mean. [Note: These yearly average anomalies weight the individual monthly anomalies by the number of days in each month.]
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).
YEAR
MO
GLOBE
NHEM.
SHEM.
TROPIC
USA48
ARCTIC
AUST
2023
Jan
-0.06
+0.07
-0.19
-0.41
+0.14
-0.10
-0.45
2023
Feb
+0.07
+0.13
+0.01
-0.13
+0.64
-0.26
+0.11
2023
Mar
+0.18
+0.22
+0.14
-0.17
-1.36
+0.15
+0.58
2023
Apr
+0.12
+0.04
+0.20
-0.09
-0.40
+0.47
+0.41
2023
May
+0.28
+0.16
+0.41
+0.32
+0.37
+0.52
+0.10
2023
June
+0.30
+0.33
+0.28
+0.51
-0.55
+0.29
+0.20
2023
July
+0.56
+0.59
+0.54
+0.83
+0.28
+0.79
+1.42
2023
Aug
+0.61
+0.77
+0.45
+0.78
+0.71
+1.49
+1.30
2023
Sep
+0.80
+0.84
+0.76
+0.82
+0.25
+1.11
+1.17
2023
Oct
+0.79
+0.85
+0.72
+0.85
+0.83
+0.81
+0.57
2023
Nov
+0.77
+0.87
+0.67
+0.87
+0.50
+1.08
+0.29
2023
Dec
+0.75
+0.92
+0.57
+1.01
+1.22
+0.31
+0.70
2024
Jan
+0.80
+1.02
+0.58
+1.20
-0.19
+0.40
+1.12
2024
Feb
+0.88
+0.95
+0.81
+1.17
+1.31
+0.86
+1.16
2024
Mar
+0.88
+0.96
+0.80
+1.26
+0.22
+1.05
+1.34
2024
Apr
+0.94
+1.12
+0.77
+1.15
+0.86
+0.88
+0.54
2024
May
+0.78
+0.77
+0.78
+1.20
+0.05
+0.22
+0.53
2024
June
+0.69
+0.78
+0.60
+0.85
+1.37
+0.64
+0.91
2024
July
+0.74
+0.86
+0.62
+0.97
+0.44
+0.56
-0.06
2024
Aug
+0.76
+0.82
+0.70
+0.75
+0.41
+0.88
+1.75
2024
Sep
+0.81
+1.04
+0.58
+0.82
+1.32
+1.48
+0.98
2024
Oct
+0.75
+0.89
+0.61
+0.64
+1.90
+0.81
+1.09
2024
Nov
+0.64
+0.88
+0.41
+0.53
+1.12
+0.79
+1.00
2024
Dec
+0.62
+0.76
+0.48
+0.53
+1.42
+1.12
+1.54
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global grid point anomaly image for December 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Kazakhstan is a land of breathtaking contrasts that present unparalleled natural beauty in the rugged peaks of the Tian Shan mountains and vast, windswept grasslands of the Great Steppe. Its people are both deeply rooted in tradition and forward-looking, embodying a blend of resilience and innovation.
Kazakhstan is a land of breathtaking contrasts that present unparalleled natural beauty in the rugged peaks of the Tian Shan mountains and vast, windswept grasslands of the Great Steppe. Its people are both deeply rooted in tradition and forward-looking, embodying a blend of resilience and innovation.
In some regions, unforgiving Kazakhstan winters push temperatures below minus 40°C. Such conditions make coal a lifeline that keeps homes warm and industries running.
Kazakhstan’s reliance on coal is deeply entrenched, and for good reason. The country possesses some of the largest coal reserves in the world – an estimated 25 billion tons. Coal-fired power plants account for nearly 70% of Kazakhstan’s electricity generation, a figure that underscores its pivotal role in the nation’s energy matrix.
Intermittent energy sources like wind and solar – promoted as a response to a fabricated climate crisis – simply cannot meet the demand for electricity. Winter is particularly challenging as solar panels are idled under thick snow and wind turbines falter in icy conditions. Coal, on the other hand, is a steady, reliable source of heat and power that ensures Kazakh families endure the cold and critical infrastructure remains operational.
Kazakh’s Nuclear Future
As the world’s largest producer of uranium and a participant in nuclear research, Kazakhstan has both the raw materials and the expertise to develop a robust nuclear power sector. Nuclear power offers a viable alternative to Kazakhstan’s energy needs. In a 2024 referendum, 73% of Kazakh people voted in favor of nuclear energy.
Unlike wind and solar, nuclear performs in any kind of weather. Modern nuclear reactors are designed with enhanced safety features and smaller footprints and would readily integrate into Kazakhstan’s energy grid.
The country “is committed to constructing effective and sustainable energy sources to meet electricity needs for households and the rapidly developing industrial sector,” says Erlan Batyrbekov, director general of Kazakhstan’s National Nuclear Center – one of Central Asia’s largest research organizations.
The country’s interest in nuclear energy has attracted international attention. China has already set up a uranium processing plant. Kazakhstan’s choices for vendors of nuclear reactors include those from France, South Korea, Russia and China. Both Russia and China have shown renewed interest on construction of nuclear power plants in the country.
But Kazakhstan is the U.S.’s lead partner in nuclear cooperation in Central Asia. Gavin Helf, an expert on Central Asia, says, “It is in the interest of the West and the United States to help Kazakhstan shape its nuclear options to prevent a Russian or Chinese monopolization of Kazakhstan’s uranium resources.”
Regardless of where Kazakhstan’s allegiance lies, the country must construct power plants to utilize its reserves of uranium. However, building nuclear plants requires significant up-front investment of capital and time.
Until there is a large-scale deployment of the technology, the country cannot afford to replace coal’s share in power generation with unreliable wind and solar despite political pressures to the contrary.
In addition to coal, oil and natural gas have helped to transform the Kazakhstan economy. Kazakhstan is a leading exporter of crude oil, with major fields like Tengiz, Kashagan, and Karachaganak driving production.
Oil exports account for nearly 30% of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) and 75% of export commodities, underscoring their importance as an economic engine. Since gaining independence in 1991, the country’s GDP has grown tenfold to over $260 billion, with hydrocarbon production playing a pivotal role. Oil exports from Kazakhstan are set to increase as Turkey has emerged as a safe and convenient new route, bypassing a complex Russian route.
This fossil fuel wealth has enabled Kazakhstan to invest in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, significantly improving living standards over the past three decades. It is for this reason that Kazakhstan must continue to invest in the development of fossil fuels and to rely on them for the lion’s share of primary energy consumption.
Kazakhstan’s energy future resides in fossil fuels, especially coal, at least until nuclear power is more fully developed and probably beyond.
This commentary was first published at RealClear Markets on December 31, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Under the guise of climate remediation, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a bill into law Dec. 27 that will allow the state to fine oil and natural gas companies a total of $75 billion over the next 25 years for their alleged role in inflicting climate-related damage on the state’s infrastructure.
Shape 3d of New York State map colored in blue and isolated on white background.
Under the guise of climate remediation, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a bill into law Dec. 27 that will allow the state to fine oil and natural gas companies a total of $75 billion over the next 25 years for their alleged role in inflicting climate-related damage on the state’s infrastructure.
“With nearly every record rainfall, heatwave, and coastal storm, New Yorkers are increasingly burdened with billions of dollars in health, safety, and environmental consequences due to polluters who have historically harmed our environment,” Hochul said in a statement.
“This landmark legislation shifts the cost of climate adaptation from everyday New Yorkers to the fossil-fuel companies most responsible for the pollution,” Hochul added.
New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act is modeled after the “polluter pays” principle contained in the original 1980 Superfund law, which said parties held responsible for contributing to toxic pollution sites would be liable for cleanup. But treating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the production and combustion of fossil fuels the same way as contamination from, say, a long-abandoned mine is comparing apples with oranges.
CO2 – whether manmade or natural – is not a pollutant; indeed, today’s rising atmospheric levels of CO2 are highly beneficial to life, both fauna and flora. One of the surest ways to lower agricultural productivity is to adopt climate policies that reduce atmospheric CO2. Furthermore, attributing weather events such as heavy rain, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps, and coastal storms to use of fossil fuels is purely speculative. Nowhere in the New York statute is a cause-and-effect relationship established.
Hochul and her fellow Democrats in Albany are not interested in such matters; their agenda is extortion. Instead of paying to upgrade the state’s roads and bridges – not to mention New York City’s crumbling subway system – with higher taxes on already overtaxed New Yorkers, shaking down oil and gas companies looks like an easy way out. Under the new law, companies that emitted over 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide between 2000 and 2018 will be held to account. How much each company will have to cough up will be determined by state bureaucrats. As many as three dozen or more, led by ExxonMobil and Chevron, will have to pay up.
Vermont passed its own version of the climate Superfund law last summer, and similar legislation is under consideration in California, Massachusetts, and Maryland. Using state and local tort laws to replenish depleted government coffers in the name of remediating damage said to result from climate change may be a bridge too far legally. The effort suffered a setback in 2021, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a New York City lawsuit targeting fossil fuel producers. As recently noted by the Wall Street Journal, the court held that state tort law could not be used “to hold multinational oil companies liable for the damages caused by global greenhouse gas emissions.”
Further clarity on applying state tort law to global greenhouse gas emissions may have to come from the U.S. Supreme Court. The court is considering whether to hear Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu. Sunoco, an oil company, was sued by the City and County of Honolulu for its alleged impact on the climate. In a petition filed in May 2024 with the Supreme Court, attorneys for the company argued that the case against Sunoco was unconstitutional.
“The Hawaii Supreme Court held that the state law can impose liability for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate,” the brief reads. “The Second Circuit, considering materially identical claims, rejected such a breathtaking, extraterritorial application of state law. Other courts, too, have declined to apply state law extraterritorially to regulate transboundary pollution. The question is whether the unique phenomenon of global climate change licenses states to ignore the structure of our constitutional system and extend state law beyond their borders is at the heart of the climate-change litigation currently ongoing nationwide. The Court’s intervention is urgently needed.”
A decision from the Supreme Court on whether to hear the case is expected in early 2025. In the meantime, blue states – anticipating that the incoming Trump administration will roll back a slew of federal green energy policies – will attempt to build a firewall to preserve as much of their climate agenda as the courts allow.
President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing to restrict offshore oil and gas drilling in his final days in office, a move that would placate the environmentalist lobby and potentially obstruct President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to unleash the U.S. energy sector, according to Bloomberg News.
President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing to restrict offshore oil and gas drilling in his final days in office, a move that would placate the environmentalist lobby and potentially obstruct President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to unleash the U.S. energy sector, according to Bloomberg News.
Biden’s reportedly forthcoming order would permanently ban new lease sales for oil and gas drilling in certain regions of the outer continental shelf, according to Bloomberg News, which cited anonymous sources familiar with the situation. Some elected Democrats and many well-funded green groups have pushed Biden to implement permanent environmental policies in the waning days of his presidency to fluster Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda.
President Joe Biden waves to the press as he walks
While many of the Biden administration’s energy policies will be relatively easy to reverse, the reportedly forthcoming offshore drilling decree will be permanent and “difficult-to-revoke” because it is enabled by a law that permits presidents to protect federal waters from drilling without clearly allowing them to walk back prior designations, according to Bloomberg News. Still, Trump could try to roll back Biden’s order, though it is not clear whether or not he would be successful. The offshore protections are clearly at odds with Trump’s campaign promise to unshackle and unleash the U.S. energy sector.
The Biden administration also worked to reduce offshore oil and gas activity by issuing the most restrictive five-year leasing schedule in modern history in 2023.
The lame duck administration has also been working to finalize climate policies and disburse funding for various green initiatives in the wake of the election, doing things like blocking oil and gas development in Nevada’s Ruby Mountains for 20 years and finalizing massive taxpayer-funded loans for green energy companies.
The White House did not respond immediately to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s 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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.