Day: January 16, 2025

Forbes and Frist Are Wrong About Climate Change Harming Human Well-Being

A recent article in Forbes written by Bill Frist, titled “The Changing Climate Is A Health Crisis: A Call To Action For Human Well-Being,” makes the oft-repeated claim that climate change is threatening to harm and already actively harming human health. This is false. Many of the conditions Frung claims are worsening are not actually worsening, and others lack sufficient data to place blame on climate change.

From ClimateRealism


By Linnea Lueken

A recent article in Forbes written by Bill Frist, titled “The Changing Climate Is A Health Crisis: A Call To Action For Human Well-Being,” makes the oft-repeated claim that climate change is threatening to harm and already actively harming human health. This is false. Many of the conditions Frung claims are worsening are not actually worsening, and others lack sufficient data to place blame on climate change.

Frist, a medical doctor and former Republican U.S. Senate Majority Leader, begins by attributing the still burning Los Angeles wildfires, and recent hurricanes, and heat waves to climate change. Climate Realism has touched on why none of these are due to the modest warming of the past century, regardless of any human contributions, here, here, and here, respectively.

“The connection is undeniable: a progressively warming planet with increasing extreme weather patterns and biodiversity loss is reshaping the conditions necessary for human survival, with profound consequences for the well-being of each of us, both for today and tomorrow,” writes Frist. He lists several ways by which this is supposedly occurring, and while we won’t cover each in detail in this post, none of his points break new ground — each and every claims is based on the false premise that climate change is a catastrophic threat.

Frist’s first argument is about “Heat stress and chronic illness,” claiming that heatwaves are “becoming the norm” and killing people. This claim misses the bigger picture. While it is true that globally there has been a slight increase in the number of deaths due to heat, conveniently left out of the discussion is that the number of deaths due to cold has declined dramatically, by more than twice as much as heat deaths have risen. Peer reviewed research consistently shows that cold temperatures kill far more people than hot temperatures. As a result, the recent modest warming has resulted in a substantial net decline in number of people dying due to temperature across the globe, as discussed in Climate at a Glance: Temperature Related Deaths.

For the United States, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data show that the number of unusually hot days has not been increasing. Meteorologist Anthony Watts explains in “Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent,” that “only 19 percent of all weather stations reported an increase in the number of unusually hot days since 1948.” The other stations report either a decrease or no change at all in the number of unusually hot days.

Air pollution causing respiratory problems is another issue Frist links to climate change: lumping fossil fuel combustion related pollution, in with smoke from wildfires, and “ground-level ozone created by air pollutant chemical reactions, and fine particulate matter contribute to respiratory diseases such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).”

In this broadside, Frist illegitimately lumps a few different issues of concern together linking them to climate change, when there is no such link. Any health problems stemming from particulate pollution or ozone from fossil fuel use have nothing to do with climate change. In fact, both types of pollution have declined even as the Earth has modestly warmed.

Smoke from wildfires can be unhealthy, but wildfires aren’t getting worse, as Climate Realism has shown dozens of times, so climate change isn’t causing more smoke from wildfires.

As things stand, the United States has never had cleaner air. EPA data show emissions of common pollutants like ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds have decreased. (See figure below)

Figure 1: Chart from the EPA, Air Quality – National Summary, https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary

Frist also claims, as others have misleadingly asserted before him, that vector borne diseases like malaria will increase and that pressure on ecosystems will lead to more human-animal contact and more zoonotic disease. In Climate at a Glance: Malaria and Mosquito-Borne Diseases, data from the World Health Organization (WHO) visualized by Our World in Data show very clearly that malaria has been declining over time, with the exception of an uptick in 2020 due to constraints on aid during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is also a wide body of scientific literature from disease experts (compiled in Chapter Four of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Fossil Fuels) that shows modest warming would not necessarily lead to more of those types of diseases. Current disease data does not support the climate-exacerbation theory. Factors besides climate change drive the spread of insect borne diseases. The presence of standing water, for example, is one big factor contributing to mosquito-borne diseases. Simple measures like using mosquito netting and spraying insecticides cuts down on incidences much more dramatically than a modest warming might expand the areas where disease bearing mosquitos could exist.

Frist’s most egregious and offensive claim is his linking “mental health and climate anxiety,” claiming that extreme weather is resulting in “increasing rates of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).” This is self-deception and projection on Frist’s part. Extreme weather is not actually getting worse. As a result, what is really driving fear of climate change is alarmists like Frist and mainstream outlets continually push the narrative that every natural disaster is being caused by climate change and they are all getting worse – a claim that has no basis in fact.

Losing one’s home or loved ones to a natural disaster is genuinely traumatizing, but, as discussed here, here, and here, it is the media that is driving “climate anxiety” and other mental problems associated with climate change. It is the false doom mongering reporting, not measured changes in the climate, that is generating unwarranted climate fear. “Climate anxiety” is entirely a construct of the media alarmist industry telling people that they should be terrified of an existential crisis, which only exists in their own echo chambers. Data does not show the planet is hurtling towards becoming “unlivable” and yet that’s exactly the narrative that Frist and his ilk in the media are pushing.

Deadline and Forbes are perpetuating the baseless claims that weather has become more unpredictable and extreme when long-term data demonstrates that it has not, and that climate change presents an existential threat to human life and health, when it does not. They are misinforming their readers in order to spur environmental action but instead are generating hopelessness and fear. This is shameful behavior.

The Saturation effect questions the prevailing narrative on CO2

The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.

From CFACT

By Collister Johnson

The assertion that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” has been the centerpiece of public policy on climate for the developed world in recent years.

Demonizing CO2 has impacted virtually every aspect of modern Western civilization. It condemns the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, the use of combustion engines for transportation, and the employment of carbon fuels for virtually everything supporting modern civilization – even down to the kind of washing machines and kitchen stoves that are deemed acceptable. It forms the basis for the most grotesque of all the alarmist shibboleths – the “social cost of carbon”.

The theory that CO2 is malevolent was enshrined in the so-called “Endangerment Finding” issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2009, which held that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that “threatens public health and safety”.

CO2 radicalism rests on one main assumption – that increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause a linear and dangerous increase in global temperature. The belief that more CO2 emitted equals significantly more heat and higher temperature is a cornerstone of the ruling scientific paradigm.

But what if this assumption – the most ubiquitous of all modern conventional wisdoms – turns out to be mistaken?

This conventional wisdom has been questioned over the last decade by impeccably credentialed scientists who have undertaken actual science – not political science – to contradict this primary assumption underlying the AGW belief system.

Case in point is the peer-reviewed analysis completed in June 2020 by eminent physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden. Mr. Happer is Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and van Wijngaarden is a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University in Toronto, both men are accomplished and renowned physicists with over 500 published papers to their credit. Mr. Happer is best known as the brilliant scientist whose insight into the physics of the atmosphere empowered the success of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

They applied highly detailed mathematical analytics to the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere and raised serious doubts about CO2’s ability to absorb heat after becoming “saturated” at current levels of 400 parts per million, and therefore unable to absorb significanty more heat from the Sun. Thus, any further increases in atmospheric CO2 – even doubling that amount to 800 parts per million – would only result in minimal increases in atmospheric temperature of 0.5C, or 1degree Fahrenheit.

This mathematically rigorous finding was validated through a controlled laboratory experiment conducted by a team of seven Viennese researchers in 2024. They measured the back infrared radiation of CO2 in a test chamber with increasing CO2 concentrations emulating realistic atmospheric conditions. They concluded that doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels from 400 to 800 ppm “shows no measurable increase in infrared radiation absorption, and thus can lead to just 0.5C warming increase at most”.

This conclusion illustrates the reason why climate alarmists have never been able to explain the reason why the Earth has never experienced runaway warming in the past when CO2 levels were 5-10 times more concentrated than today, nor why the UN climate models based on linear warming theory have been proven to be so terribly wrong.

If the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere is well beyond the level where increases are causing additional radiation to be absorbed, then all the government policies intended to reduce or eliminate CO2 emissions in order to stop climate change are just as effective as King Canute’s efforts to control the tides.

In short, these saturation analyses thoroughly refute the conventional wisdom that increasing levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming.

And they are not alone.

For example, in 2020 German chemist Michael Schnell published his study “Experimental Verification of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect” which also confirmed that the saturation effect of CO2 results in minimal warming. In addition, Franz-Karl Reinhardt, a professor with the leading Swiss research facility EPF, undertook another study in 2017 which demonstrated that a doubling of the current level of atmospheric CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm would produce only be one quarter of 1 degree Celsius – too small to even be accurately measured.

The impact of all these recent studies – and there are many more than just the ones mentioned above – is clear: the conventional wisdom regarding CO2 warming is unraveling. The demonization of CO2 – one of the greatest popular delusions in modern human history – may finally be coming to an end.

It may well not be not true that an increase in CO2 causes a linear and catastrophic increase in atmospheric temperature.

The implication of CO2 saturation is a game changer, and should provide the Trump Administration with a substantial line of questioning of EPA’s Endangerment Finding.

Hype Uncovered: ‘Nature’ Study Shows That Permafrost Is Not a Climate Tipping Point

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here presents peer-reviewed climate science that shows permafrost is not really a tipping point we need to worry about. 

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here presents peer-reviewed climate science that shows permafrost is not really a tipping point we need to worry about. 

Here’s the text of what is reported on the video: 

“Permafrost soils store a lot of CO2s and are often described as a critical tipping element in the Earth system, which suddenly and globally collapses above a certain level of global warming. Yet, the view of a ticking time bomb that initially behaves rather calmly and only ignites at a certain warming threshold is controversial among researchers. According to scientific data, this claim is not correct, as an international study team led by the Alfred Wegener Institute has now been able to show.

According to the study, there is not one specific global climate tipping point, but many local and regional tipping elements that “ignite” at different times, accumulate over time and cause the permafrost to thaw in step with climate change.

Permafrost soils cover around a quarter of the land area in the northern hemisphere and store vast amounts of organic carbon in the form of dead plant remains. These are not decomposed when frozen. Only when the permafrost thaws do microorganisms become active and release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. Rising global temperatures could therefore activate these gigantic reservoirs and massively increase climate change through additional emissions. In the public debate, there is therefore repeated talk of a “ticking carbon time bomb”. This is based on the assumption that permafrost, like the Greenland ice sheet, is one of several tipping elements in the Earth system. According to this, the permafrost initially disappears only slowly in the course of global warming. Only when a critical threshold value is exceeded do the thawing processes suddenly intensify themselves and a rapid, irreversible global permafrost collapse sets in. Although such a thawing scenario is often suspected, it has not yet been possible to clarify whether such a threshold value really exists and at what temperature it could be exceeded.

An international research team led by Jan Nitzbon from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) has now gotten to the bottom of this question. The AWI researcher explains, quote: “In fact, the depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is controversial in research. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also points out this ambiguity in its latest assessment report. We wanted to close this knowledge gap. For our study, we compiled the available scientific literature on the processes that can influence and accelerate the thawing of permafrost. Underpinned by our own data analysis, we evaluated all current findings on thawing processes to determine whether and on what spatial scale – local, regional, global – they can lead to self-sustaining thawing and thus to a ‘tipping point’ at a certain warming threshold.” End quote.

The results of the study clearly show that there is self-reinforcing, partly irreversible geological, hydrological and physical processes, but these only have a local or regional effect. One example is the formation of so-called thermokarst lakes. This involves ice melting in permafrost soils, which then sink. The meltwater collects on the surface and forms a dark lake that absorbs a lot of solar energy. This further increases the warming of the permafrost beneath the lake and creates a self-perpetuating dew process in the area around the lake. Similar amplifying feedbacks were also found in other processes relevant to permafrost, such as the loss of boreal coniferous forests due to fires – but here too only on a local to regional scale. There is no evidence for self-reinforcing internal processes that would simultaneously affect the entire permafrost above a certain degree of global warming and accelerate thawing globally. Even the estimated release of greenhouse gases would not lead to a global leap in global warming at least until the end of the century. The depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is therefore misleading.

The study was published in Nature Climate Change in June 2024.”

A DEI Green New Deal Hydrogen Bomb

That’s how Victor David Hanson describes this week’s catastrophic wildfires in California.

From Watts Up With That?

From American Thinker

That’s how Victor David Hanson describes this week’s catastrophic wildfires in California.

“It was a total systems collapse from the idea of not spending money on irrigation, storage, water, fire prevention and forest management, a viable insurance industry, a DEI hierarchy, you put it all together and it’s something like a DEI Green New Deal hydrogen bomb… Gavin Newsom was fiddling, he’s almost Nero Newsom. And this has been something that is just unimaginable… The systems breakdown. And to finish, what we’re seeing in California is a state with 40 million people. And yet the people who run it feel that it should return to a 19th century pastoral condition. They are de-civilizing the state and de-industrializing the state and de-farming the state. But they’re not telling the 40 million people that their lifestyles will have to revert back to the 19th century, when you had no protection from fire… You didn’t have enough water in California. You didn’t have enough power. You didn’t pump oil. So, we are deliberately making these decisions not to develop energy, not to develop a timber industry, not to protect the insurance industry, not to protect houses and property. And we’re doing it in almost a purely nihilistic fashion.”

And any honest accounting underscores the truth of his assessment.

LA is burning. And the derelict people responsible are worried that they are found out as charlatans and empty suits. The leftwing voters who enabled them are getting angry over the inferno that their chosen politicos green-lighted — as if they are shocked, shocked by the consequences of their voting. 

Here are just some of the most glaring examples of the misgovernance of California which contributed to the catastrophe, in case your source of news brushes past them with feature stories of loss and nonsense about climate change. (Average annual rainfall in California has remained unchanged since the late 19th century and California has not been in drought conditions since 2022. Sometimes it does rain in California. Sometimes it does not. Therefore, particularly wise management of water resources is necessary and that has been ignored.) It has not created or maintained existing water reservoirs, it has not created fire breaks, it has forbidden the removal of dry brush in its forests. The people holding elective office have demonstrated indifference and incompetence to the citizens of the state. A week before the fires broke out, a fire weather watch was declared. The mayor of Los Angeles Karen Bass (a long time Castro fan) left anyway for a junket in Ghana which hardly ranks among her job duties. Her deputy mayor for public safety was on leave after the FBI raided his home “allegedly for making a bomb threat against City Hall earlier this year.” 

On her very first day in office, the mayor allocated $1.3 billion to address homelessness and cut $17.6 million from the fire department. DEI has been a greater priority for her and her three female fire chiefs than preventing and responding to fires. The openly-stated philosophy motivating her priorities were that there were too many white male firefighters, and great efforts were made to force them out and not rehire any more of them (even though firefighters normally need the kind of upper body strength few females possess). In Pacific Palisades where the fire first broke out there is a reservoir capable of holding

clarices pieces

117 million gallons of water. The LA Times first reported it was empty for repairs, but it has been empty since 2009.  The generously paid water chief, ($750,000 p.a.) Janisse Quinones knew months before the fires that the reservoir was empty. She had to know as well that many of the fire hydrants were missing or empty. No timely effort was made to seek help from Canada or elsewhere to bring in planes capable of scooping water from the Pacific where the governor had sent California’s rainfall after he destroyed dams to save a smelt fish.

Billions of dollars in loss, much of it uninsured. That is because the state imposed price controls on insurance premiums and insurers could not make a profit on the mandated state maximums so they cancelled the insurance. (The same dopes who elected the people who made this lamebrained decision doubtless will paint the insurance companies, not the feckless legislators, as blameworthy for their substantial losses. The only advantage of a failed public education system is a plethora of really stupid voters.)

Most of these failures were points made by the president-elect years ago, who had experience as a builder working in California, all of which Governor Newsom ignored because play-acting at governance with a good hairdo seems to work well enough for Californians.

Given the giant web of bureaucracies regulating the construction of housing in California, it will be a long time, if ever, before the burned-out areas will be able to be reconstructed. And when and if they are, those homeowners will be hit with massive taxes (taxes which will continue to be allocated for everything but essential services, if history is a guide.)

What another AMAZING “coincidence” California had just passed new tax laws, if your home burns down and you don’t rebuild within 2 years (impossible in California) you lose your tax basis. Your property taxes SKYROCKET to the new values of the property “Think about a home that was purchased many years ago for $5 million. Let’s say they were paying $65,000 a year in property taxes. Property goes up a lot over time, especially in these areas. Maybe the value today is $30 million. They go to rebuild it. If it was not, if they couldn’t transfer the tax basis, you’re looking at like $400,000 a year that they would have to pay” “In 2020, California voters approved a bill that basically said that if your house burns down in a fire, you can transfer the tax basis of that property to something that you buy or something that you build. But you only have two years to do it.” So some of the most expensive homes and properties the entire world now will get reassessed to pay maximum property tax values. 

Despite shelling out $24 billion on “homelessness’’ (likely to friendly leftist NGOs for salaries and political operations) homelessness has increased under Newsom by 40%.) Michael Shellenberger has a fine explanation of how the Left’s absurd hatred of Western civilization and human progress has led to this point. (Read it all for the best understanding.) Among the reasons for their failures is this:

…they are beholden to affluent, radical Left environmentalist and social justice donors who live in places like Marin County and Hollywood. These are the same people who bankroll radical Left groups like the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, who have successfully blocked desalination and water storage plants, the proper clearing of flammable debris in forests, and effective management of landscapes around housing development, for over 45 years. Before that, the same groups and financial interests halted the expansion of nuclear power, which is the perfect energy source for desalination. [snip] For decades, Hollywood cranked out movies and TV depicting the exhaustion of natural resources and climate as causing the apocalypse. Yesterday, some reporters and scientists blamed climate change for the lack of rain in LA. That’s ridiculous. There’s no trend in annual rainfall from 1877 to 2024. We have wet years and dry years. Destroying civilization turned out to be expensive, not cheap. Californians pay the highest taxes for the most expensive gasoline, electricity, and water in the nation. [snip] Both ancient wisdom and modern psychology teach us that one can understand a person’s motivation by the consequences of their actions. California’s Democrats, progressives, and politicians lied when they said their highest priority was protecting the people of California. They lied when they said they cared about social justice. And they lied when they said they cared about protecting the environment. Instead, what they cared about was destroying the civilization they had long ago decided was evil. All civilizations require a story. The story that built Los Angeles and California was one of human progress. The story that destroyed it was of human sin. For decades, progressives, Democrats, and the news and entertainment media preached that civilization was evil and doomed. Slavery, indigenous genocide, and climate change were proof. And now, as the city of angels smolders, it’s clear that progressives reaped what they sowed.

In the meantime, fires still smolder, many suspected to have been caused by arsonists, and gangs of looters prowl areas where homeowners have evacuated. Newsom finally called in the National Guard to better control against it, but it’s about a week late.

In a better world the state could be put into receivership and its assets properly managed, absent that, many agencies and offices in the state are ripe for a thorough accounting and housecleaning.

INEOS closes last remaining synthetic ethanol plant in the UK

INEOS closes last remaining synthetic ethanol plant in the UK. High energy prices and high carbon taxes have forced the closure of this strategic UK asset.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Jack Broughton

Ineos have just issued this press release:

INEOS closes last remaining synthetic ethanol plant in the UK

  • Lack of energy strategy and high carbon taxes continue to de-industrialise Britain
  • INEOS closes last remaining synthetic ethanol plant in the UK with the loss of several hundred jobs.

High energy prices and high carbon taxes have forced the closure of this strategic UK asset.

The UK, which used to be a major force in chemicals, employing a large and highly skilled workforce, has seen the closure of 10 large chemical complexes in the last 5 years alone and, in complete contrast to the USA, has not had one new chemical plant built for a generation.

Energy prices have doubled in the UK in the last 5 years and now stand five times higher than those in the USA. The UK cannot compete with such a huge disadvantage.

The synthetic alcohol, which is essential for the manufacture of many pharmaceutical drugs, is necessary for many of the new blockbuster drugs. It will now be imported.

The Scottish ethanol plant in Grangemouth is one of only 2 in Europe and since the start of production over 40 years ago, has produced the equivalent of 25 billion bottles of Scottish whisky.

Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Chairman of INEOS says, “De-industrialising Britain achieves nothing for the environment. It merely shifts production and emissions elsewhere. The UK, and particularly the North, needs high quality manufacturing and the associated manufacturing jobs. We are witnessing the extinction of one of our major industries as chemical manufacture has the life squeezed out of it.”

Notes to Editors

Synthetic ethanol was produced on the Grangemouth plant predominantly for use in healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. The plant capacity of 180,000 tonne per year is equivalent to:

  • 226 million litres per year
  • Equivalent to filling 90 Olympic sized swimming pools per year
  • The ethanol content of more than 600 million bottles of hand sanitizer per year.

Over the course of its operational lifespan, the plant made the equivalent of 25 billion bottles of Scottish Whisky.

The UK chemicals sector, like many other energy intensive industries, is fighting to be competitive in global markets:

  • Energy costs can be between 5 and 10 times cheaper in some regions
  • Many countries outside of the UK / EU have no carbon reduction trading scheme or taxes

Combined, this can result in a differential in the costs of distilling and purifying ethanol equivalent to around 10% of the sales price of ethanol.

Over the last two decades, carbon emissions from our operations at Grangemouth have fallen by almost 50%; we are on a journey towards net zero, but the next steps require significant investment and Governmental support/ action

INEOS is calling upon the UK Government to take urgent action and act in the interests of UK manufacturing. Specifically in three key areas:

  1. An energy policy that provides globally competitive pricing of natural gas, and hydrogen, as we move towards net zero.
  2. An Emissions Trading Scheme that supports industry and decarbonisation equally; the current scheme acts as a tax on UK operators and favours importers who pay nothing.
  3. A trade policy that supports UK manufacturing in its own domestic markets and does not incentivise imports.

All affected direct employees associated with the ethanol plant operations will be redeployed across the chemicals business at Grangemouth. This still results in a net job loss of 80 roles at Grangemouth, with a further impact of more than 500 indirect roles in the wider economy.

https://www.ineos.com/news/ineos-group/chemicals-coming-to-an-end-in-the-uk

Biden Uses Last-Minute AI Executive Order to Force More Green Energy onto the Grid

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Tuesday, just six days before he leaves office, that aims to bolster the United States’ artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and “accelerate the clean energy transition.”

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Thomas English
Contributor

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Tuesday, just six days before he leaves office, that aims to bolster the United States’ artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure and “accelerate the clean energy transition.”

The executive order directs the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Energy (DOE) to lease federal property to the private sector to build “gigawatt-scale” AI data centers while enlisting the Department of the Interior to “identify lands it manages that are suitable for clean energy.” The move is the latest in a series of last-minute advances for the president’s green energy agenda, which includes a newly announced crackdown for future offshore oil and gas drilling.

“This Executive Order will direct the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to lease federal sites where the private sector can build frontier AI infrastructure at speed and scale,” the official White House statement reads. “These efforts are designed to accelerate the clean energy transition in a way that is responsible and respectful to local communities, and in a way that does not impose any new costs on American families.”

I know many are skeptical about the need for clean energy.

Some don’t believe climate change is real – they’re wrong. The clean energy transition is already happening, and the United States must win.

This will shape the future of the global economy and the planet.

— President Biden (@POTUS) January 14, 2025

The order defines “clean energy generation resources” as geothermal, nuclear fission and fusion, solar, wind, hydroelectric, hydrokinetic and marine energy — or any energy source that produces “few or no emissions of carbon dioxide.” (RELATED: Trump Reportedly Mulling Exec Order To Shield Americans’ Gas Stoves From Bureaucrats)

The energy consumed while training large language models (LLMs) has long been a concern for climate activists, who point out that AI and cryptocurrency data centers accounted for nearly 2% of global energy consumption in 2022 — a figure that could double by 2026, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The White House also called the development of U.S. AI infrastructure a “national security imperative” in the statement, emphasizing the need to prevent adversaries from harnessing the “powerful systems.”

“Domestic data centers for training and operating powerful AI models will help the United States facilitate AI’s safe and secure development, harness AI in service of national security, and prevent adversaries from accessing powerful systems to the detriment of our military and national-security,” the statement claims.

The administration added that the U.S. should not “sacrifice critical environmental standards and our shared efforts to protect clean air and clean water” in the effort to maintain AI dominance. Biden also announced Monday a new restriction on advanced semiconductor exports, which aims to prevent countries like China from training advanced LLMs.

The executive order is another eleventh-hour move in what appears to be an effort to stymy President-elect Donald Trump’s energy agenda, which is expected to include a vast expansion of oil and gas drilling on federal lands and waters. Biden announced a ban Monday for future offshore oil and gas activity across 625 million acres of the outer continental shelf, citing a law that could prevent a successive administration from easily reversing the policy.

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.

Twenty-five years of German energy transition: a way not to go

The German „Energy Transition” has failed and its interventions in the economy and nature will burden the country for generations to come: disposal of obsolete wind and solar plants, restoration of the landscape and development of a reliable electricity supply. How could it be that this costly mistake has remained unchallenged to this day?

From Clintel

The German „Energy Transition” has failed and its interventions in the economy and nature will burden the country for generations to come: disposal of obsolete wind and solar plants, restoration of the landscape and development of a reliable electricity supply. How could it be that this costly mistake has remained unchallenged to this day?

Guest post by Dr. Hans Hofmann-Reinecke, Cape Town

Energy Transition and Logic
The German energy transition, initiated in 2000 by the EEG (Renewable Energy Sources Act), is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. This is a good time to look at the intention, logic and results of this gigantic national project.

Scientific justification:

  1. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly in recent decades due to human activities.
  2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere.
  3. The impact of this warming on the climate and its consequences for life on earth are unforeseeable.
  4. Everything must be done to reduce CO2 emissions caused by humanity to zero.
  5. Germany is making its contribution by switching all consumers to CO2-free (“renewable”) energy sources.

How credible are these claims?

  1. Measurements show without a doubt that the CO2 concentration has increased by about a third in the past 6 decades. Is this increase man-made? A mathematical comparison of the amount of fossil fuels consumed with the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere makes this seem plausible. On the other hand, the measured increase did not stall during the “Corona years”, although traffic and industrial production were significantly reduced worldwide during this time. This should have been reflected in the CO2 budget.
  2. CO2 certainly has an influence on the temperature of the atmosphere, but how much? 97% of “scientists” are convinced that there will be dramatic warming, but on the other hand, 97% of the predictions of their “computer models” turn out to be wrong. The influence of the sun is much stronger than CO2, and even without CO2 variations, there have been dramatic changes in the climate in the history of the earth.
  3. Floods, droughts and other natural disasters have always existed, but today they are explained by global warming. However, it has been proven that hurricanes have become less frequent in the USA in recent decades.
  4. Even if global temperatures were to rise by 1 or 2 hundredths of a degree per year, this would not pose any threat to humans or nature.
  5. Germany’s contribution to the global CO2 budget is 1.8%. Given the gigantic, unchecked growth in emissions in China and India, Germany’s efforts to reduce CO2 are irrelevant.

Not even symbolically
In summary, even if claims 1 to 4 were 100% correct – which is by no means the case – Germany’s efforts to avoid CO2 emissions are ineffective; they are symbolic at best. A comparison of costs and benefits, i.e. the comparison of the price of the existential damage to Germany’s economy caused by the energy transition with a result that is symbolic at best, reveals a grotesque disproportion.

No country has burdened its citizens as much as Germany in the name of the energy transition. The “Statista” graph (above) shows the amount of CO2 emitted per kWh of electrical energy generated for various European countries (annual average 2023). The “European villain champion” is Poland with 662 grams, while Germany with 381 grams ranks a respectable 6th out of 26 nations. The bottom of the list are Finland and France, the latter with a full 56 grams. In Germany, seven times the amount of CO2 is emitted per kilowatt hour compared to its French neighbor.

One could only conclude that the energy transition never had the true goal of reducing CO2 emissions in Germany. This suspicion is also supported by the shutdown of nuclear power plants, the only major CO2-free energy source in the country. Could it be that, behind the scenes, under the name of energy transition, a completely different game is going on than what we are told? But what could that be?

Follow the Money!

If you compare the snail’s pace at which infrastructure projects are being tackled in Germany with the speed at which wind turbines are springing up, you observe a clear difference. The energy and intelligence with which “renewables” are being driven forward is sorely missed when repairing motorway bridges or railway tracks. In 2017 alone, over 3,000 wind turbines were installed, almost 10 per day. And for each wind turbine, a heavy-duty access road must first be built, sometimes through mountainous and forested terrain. All of this happens quickly without any bureaucratic or technical hurdles. Neither species protection nor the Federal Forest Act stand in the way; they disappear into thin air as if by magic.

Perhaps this magic hand will wave a few banknotes; can that be completely ruled out? According to estimates by the “Welt” newspaper, 520 billion euros will have been invested in the energy transition by the end of 2025, which is around €12,000 per German taxpayer. Price Waterhouse Coopers estimates that the costs will be 13,200 billion euros by the time the energy transition is completed in 2045. But the money is not lost, it is just in someone else’s hands now. Who could that be?

In any case, there are very close relations between the “Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Protection” and the actors, contractors and other potential beneficiaries of the energy transition. It was even claimed that these relations were too close, there was talk of nepotism, which led to the “best man affair” and the resignation of the then State Secretary Dr. Patrick Graichen.

Globalization
But now there is an urgent question like an elephant in the room: What will become of this wonderfully well-established climate industry which works like a perfect clockwork if one day there is no longer any room for wind turbines and photovoltaics in Germany?

So now a plan has been put in place: energy transition in South Africa! There is plenty of space there, and the electricity today comes from nasty hard coal. The Africans may have a lot of coal, but do they have the money needed for an energy transition? Do they have the tens of billions that such a project would cost? Of course, not; but the German taxpayer is happy to step in. The” Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPS)” were quickly conjured up, which provide financial support from Germany to the tune of 22 billion euros for the South African energy transition.

This raises the question of whether the government actually controls the energy transition or whether the tail is perhaps wagging the dog.

This article also appears on the author’s blog Think – Again . The bestseller Green and Stupid, and other of his books, are available at Amazon.

French Nuclear: End of the Line?

Last month (December 21), the 1,600-MW Flamanville nuclear power plant near Normandy (below) began delivering electricity to the French and European grid. It became the first new unit in France’s once-aggressive nuclear power program since 1996. The new reactor becomes the 57th in the French fleet.

From Master Resource

By Kennedy Maize

“Construction of the advanced ‘European Pressurized Reactor’ (EPR) at Flamanville began in 2007. It was projected to come into service in 2012 at a cost of $3.4 billion. The final cost, according to (Électricité de France) is about $13.7 billion.”

Last month (December 21), the 1,600-MW Flamanville nuclear power plant near Normandy (below) began delivering electricity to the French and European grid. It became the first new unit in France’s once-aggressive nuclear power program since 1996. The new reactor becomes the 57th in the French fleet.

EDF (Électricité de France) the French state-owned electric utility, was once seen as at the forefront of nuclear power, ahead in many ways of even the U.S., which has had its own troubles moving beyond its initial nuclear boom times. No more.

Construction of the advanced “European Pressurized Reactor” or EPR at Flamanville began in 2007. It was projected to come into service in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion (or about $3.4 billion). The final cost, according to EDF, is about €13.3 billion ($13.7 billion).

EDF’s Generation 111+ EPR, originally designed by French nuclear developer Areva, has meant a world of trouble for France and some of the other nations that have bought the machines. The first two reactors went to China, where Taishan 1 and Taishan 2 went into service in 2018 and 2019 respectively. While the Chinese are opaque about their nuclear program, the two EPR reactors suffered severe construction delays, taking almost twice the 46 months Areva projected. Taishan 1 was shut down between July 2021 and August 2022 for repairs.

EDF’s EPR experience in Europe, where information is more available and reputable, has been worse. Finland contracted for an EPR its existing nuclear site on Olkiluoto Island. Construction began in 2005 with operation planned for 2009, Olkiluoto 3 went into service in 2023 after multiple problems. The final cost came in at over €11 billion ($11.5 billion), much of that absorbed by Areva.

In Britain, EDF’s British subsidiary is building the two-unit, 3,200-MW Hinkley Point C EPR project. Hinkley Point has suffered similar woes to the other EPR projects. A year ago, EDF announced that the price tag for the two units would hit £41.6-£47.9 billion ($52.3 billion-$60.2 billion), with the first unit coming online in 2029-2031. That remains speculative.

Despite these problems, France is doubling down on nuclear, with a new, scaled-down 1,200-MW EPR design, known as EPR2. In 2022, President Emmanuel Macron announced an aggressive “renaissance” of French nuclear ambitions, starting with construction of six EPR2 units at its Penly site in northern France and another six to follow elsewhere. In July 2023, EDF filed an application with French nuclear regulators for approval of two EPR2 units at Penly.

Macron’s nuclear optimism has generated skepticism (and his government is on shaky grounds, not apparently related to his nuclear enthusiasm).

Veteran French wind energy financier and commentator Jérôme Guillet, who publishes an eponymous Substack newsletter Jérôme à Paris, has doubts about the future of the nukes. He wrote before Dec. 21 that

this is the last gasp of nuclear – maybe some people hope to see Flamanville being finally connected to the grid in France, and multiple PR stunts by Microsoft, Amazon et al. (which are just announcements of developments, i.e. highly conditional commitments to purchase electricity) as the start of a renaissance for the sector, but it’s more like a last gasp – in fact 2024 is most likely the year where wind+solar overtook nuclear in the USA, as well as coal.

Flamanville, he writes, “is likely one of the last nuclear plants to be built in Europe. Hinckley Point may be completed at some point in the future in the UK, but even in France the next ones are in doubt, with decisions on future investments postponed. “By the time any new nuclear plant in the West gets built, the transformation of our power systems towards renewables dominance will be over.”

Jerome is also dismissive of the specter of furious growth in electric demand, which is fueling much of the nuclear boosterism. “Despite all the breathless announcements about AI and data centers,” he observes, “overall demand is mostly stable in the US (increasing by 2% in 2024 after decreasing by the same in 2023), and shrinking fast in Europe.” He concludes:

Some are blaming European deindustrialization (and collective suicide caused by crazy green policies and/or naivety about Russia, (even if these are two contradictory and inconsistent arguments) but the trend predates the war in Ukraine. The reality is that we are continuously improving industrial processes while moving towards services, and a service economy is less energy intensive than a more primitive one. Even in emerging markets energy intensity is going down fast.

————

This was originally posted at The Quad Report, the blog site of electricity expert Kennedy Maize.

Why the LA Wildfires Have Little to Do with Drought or Climate Change

Some climate activists and media outlets are claiming the drought or climate change were major contributors to the recent wildfires around Los Angeles.
These claims can easily be shown to be false.

From The Cliff Mass Weather Blog

By CliffMass

Some climate activists and media outlets are claiming the drought or climate change were major contributors to the recent wildfires around Los Angeles (see sample below)

These claims can easily be shown to be false.

Drought had little impact on the LA fires.

Climate Change had little impact.  

Let me provide the facts below.

The Fuels

The vegetative fuels for the fires were predominantly light fuels such as grasses and range vegetation.  To illustrate, consider the area where the Palisades fire started (below).

Most of these fuels are 1-10 hr fuels, which means they typically dry out after 1-10 hours of drying conditions.   

The meteorological conditions immediately preceding the fires were so drying (very strong winds with  very low humidities) that even if it had rained the week before, the fire still would have occurred.

Consider a plot of the ten-hour fuel moisture at the nearby Topanga Canyon site over the past year (below).  Keep in mind that when the moisture level gets below 15% rapid fire spread is possible.  

Interestingly, even during every wet period (such as the first part of 2024), fuel moisture levels return to burning-level fuel moisture between showers.

There has been a late start to the rainy season in southern CA, which normally begins around December 1.  So the normal green-up of regional vegetation, which works against fire, was delayed about a month when the fire started.   Obviously, local utilities knew this and should have considered the impacts (increasing fire threat)

But grasses and bushes were not the only thing that burned.  Once the wildfires got to the homes or burning embers reaches the homes, the homes THEMSELVES supplied the fuels.  

One house ignited the next.   

This is very similar to the situations of others major urban wildfires, such as the Camp Fire (Paradise, CA), Lahaina (Maui), and the Marshal Fire (Superior, CO).   Homes flammability has little to do with weather conditions.   But poorly constructed homes (e.g., flammable roofs, no screens to stop embers moving into home spaces) are major problems.

There is No Trend for Less Precipitation in Southern California

Several media and other outlets suggested climate change associated dry conditions was a contributor to the LA wildfires.   First,  as noted above, the light fuels that brought the fires to the homes did not need a drought period to be sufficiently dried to burn.  

But even if drought had been important, there is no evidence than climate change could have contributed.   How can I be be so sure?  Because there is no long-term trend for less precipitation over the region.

Consider the trends of October 1 to January 6 precipitation at Los Angeles from 1950 through this year (see below).  The trend line is UPWARDS (brown line).   More rain, not less.  Yes, the past autumn was dry, but that is not climate but normal weather variability.

Not convinced?    Below is the annual precipitation of the region since the late 1940s.  

No downward trend.  And the last several years have been wetter than normal, which would contribute to more bountiful vegetative growth and thus more fire potential.

The LA Fires Were Associated with Strong-Dry Santa Ana Winds.  Such winds are predicted to WEAKEN, NOT Strengthen under global warming.

The LA wildfires were associated with very strong (up to 100 mph) and dry Santa Ana winds, which were generally from the northeast.

There is an extensive peer-reviewed science literature indicating that global warming will reduce the strength, intensity, and frequency of such Santa Ana winds.

It makes complete sense that global warming would weaken the Santa Ana winds.  

Such winds are driven by difference in pressure between inland high pressure and lower pressure to the south and west.  This high pressure is associated with low-level cool air (cool air is denser and heavier than warm air), which will be warmed due to global warming, thus reducing the pressure difference that drives the Santa Ana winds.

_____________________________________________

Very strong video and photographic evidence indicated the Los Angeles Eaton fire, which resulted in the most deaths was due to a faulty power line.  Clearly, this transmission line was not de-energized even with the forecast of severe Santa Ana winds.

Engines Galore Seek to Dethrone the BEV

There are a plethora of new automobile engines their creators hope will capture the commercial marketplace in the near future. The engines are designed to run on methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, and (surprise?) lithium. Another company has a motor shaped like a donut that operates inside the wheels.

From Watts Up With That?

By Duggan Flanakin

There are a plethora of new automobile engines their creators hope will capture the commercial marketplace in the near future. The engines are designed to run on methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, and (surprise?) lithium. Another company has a motor shaped like a donut that operates inside the wheels.

Hydrogen

The Indian state of Kerala is pioneering the use of “green” hydrogen in transportation. The Kerala Green Hydrogen Valley project, initiated by the Agency for New and Renewable Energy Research and Technology (ALERT), is creating a complete hydrogen value chain to showcase how hydrogen can reduce emissions across industries.

Kerala wants hydrogen-fueled, rather than battery-electric, heavy-duty trucks to replace diesel trucks, as they can travel long distances without sacrificing carrying capacity. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is focused on hydrogen buses. The Kochi Water Metro project has included hydrogen boats as part of an integrated transport system.

Despite these grandiose plans, India will need hydrogen refueling infrastructures which cost an estimated US$2 million per station – far above the cost of installing charging stations for battery-electric vehicles. Heavy-duty hydrogen fuel cell systems also need improvements.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently boasted that a hydrogen-powered truck traveled over 1,800 miles on a single fill-up of hydrogen fuel. The truck – the H2Rescue – is a prototype developed by DOE in partnership with the U.S. Army, the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, the Naval Research Lab, and Accelera by Cummins. No word yet when or even whether the experimental truck will be placed into real-world service.

The truck, powered by a Cummins Accelera hydrogen fuel cell engine paired with a 250-kilowatt traction motor, is being designed for use in emergency response, military, and utility scenarios. With an initial 386 pounds of hydrogen in its tanks, the truck traveled California roads during rush-hour traffic at speeds between 50 and 55 miles per hour.

Methanol

German engine manufacturer MAN Energy Solutions is developing a new dual-fuel methanol engine for the maritime industry. The MAN 175 DF-M is expected to be available for retrofitting into its successful MAN 175D high-speed engine by the end of 2026. Caterpillar Marine is also working on a dual-fuel methanol engine model set for field tests in 2026.

MAN’s dual-fuel engine is available in configurations with 12, 16, and 20 cylinders, each with an internal diameter of 175 mm for mechanical or electrical propulsion and onboard power generation with a power range between 1,500 and 2,000 rpm. The engine is optimized for ferries, offshore supply vessels, tugboats, and other working vessels. Customized versions can be fitted for superyachts and other marine applications.

The dual-fuel engine has already been awarded “fuel ready” certification from Det Norske Veritas, a global risk management and quality assurance organization based in Norway. The DNV certification affirms that the engine is optimized for diesel-electric and diesel-mechanical propulsion with the implementation of dual-fuel methanol technology.

Nitrogen

The Dearman Engine Company has been developing and researching a liquid nitrogen engine solution for over a decade. Beginning in 2014, DEC embarked on a project in collaboration with Ricardo, E4tech, MIRA, and leading British academic and research institutions to develop a zero-emission piston engine that runs on liquid nitrogen with the exhaust being cold air.

DEC says that liquid nitrogen’s benefits include its simple design with low production costs, as it utilizes most of the existing powertrain supply chain. The engine require minimal maintenance with no loss of capacity over its lifespan.

DEC claims that the energy provision of nitrogen engines is 700 times more powerful than that of hydrogen. Hydrogen engines use either combustion or electrochemical reactions, both of which must overcome problems with energy density and storage. But pressurized nitrogen turns turbines directly with minimum energy loss.

The nitrogen engine has zero tailpipe emissions and low overall greenhouse gas emissions, and its fast-refueling time is comparable to gasoline or diesel engines. The engine can harness waste heat from the coolant loop to integrate with other waste heat recovery systems; it can also provide both propulsion power and cooling.

DEC says this technology is highly relevant for industrial applications, mining, inland waterway applications, and the built environment. The only exhaust is cold air, conducted through the vaporization and expansion of cryogenic fluids. Ambient or low-grade waste heat is used as an energy source with the cryogen providing both the working fluid and heat sink.

Lithium

German researchers from the University of Kaiserslautern-Landau have introduced a prototype quantum engine powered by lithium. The engine operates by manipulating the quantum states of lithium atoms to generate energy.

Results of the university’s research highlight the engine’s potential to redefine energy production, opening doors to innovation like ultra-efficient quantum batteries that last longer and charge faster. This technology holds promise for applications beyond engines, potentially reshaping how energy is produced and consumed across industries.

For the engine to function effectively, lithium atoms must be maintained at temperatures nearing absolute zero to minimize thermal interference and ensure precise control over the quantum states. Magnetic fields shift atoms between the two quantum states of lithium atoms — fermion and boson states. This is the critical step in the energy conversion process.

Researchers found innovative ways to control the quantum states of fermions and bosons. Fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously, but bosons can share identical states. The research uncovered a method to toggle between these states to optimize engine performance – yet to date, the prototype has achieved only a 25% efficiency rate, lower than that of conventional thermal engines.

The Donut Motor

Electric motor manufacturer Donut Lab has designed a donut-shaped in-wheel motor to power electric vehicles. The new motor has a big hole in the middle that allows it to fit perfectly into a wheel.

The donut motor fits into a 21-inch hoop, delivers up to 845 horsepower and 3,171 pound-feet of torque while weighing only 88 pounds. The resultant removal of drivetrain components, half-shifts, and other parts further reduces overall weight. With no motor housed in the vehicle’s body, there is extra space to increase seating area and cargo capacity.

Donut Lab claims its motors are up to 50% cheaper to manufacture, but the in-wheel motors make the wheels heavier than conventional wheels. This means they add unsprung mass (weight below the suspension) that can negatively impact handling and braking.

The company is also developing a version of its donut motor for semi-trucks that will provide 200 kW and 2,212 pound-feet of torque per wheel. The technology is already being used on the road in a few electric bicycles developed by Verge Motorcycles, Donut Lab’s parent company.

BMW, too, has developed its own in-wheel electric motor in partnership with Munich-based tech firm DeepDrive. The BMW in-wheel motor, currently in the testing phase, features a unique dual-rotor design.

This sampling barely scratches the surface of emerging automotive technology worldwide – but all of these reports were issued within a two-week period at the end of 2024. Innovation and free markets, not government mandates, continue to drive the future of transportation.

Duggan Flanakin is a senior policy analyst at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow who writes on a wide variety of public policy issues.

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