False, Forbes, Climate Change Is Not Threatening Food Security

Forbes’ recent article, “Climate Change Threatens Food Security—Can Data Be the Real Hero?” pushes a familiar but misleading claim: that climate change poses a significant threat to global food production. This narrative is not only false, but it also implies just the opposite of what is true. Real-world agricultural data, and the sciences which study plant growth and food production, show that the modest warming and rainfall improvements thus far have benefitted plant growth in general and crop yields, more specifically.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

Forbes’ recent article, “Climate Change Threatens Food Security—Can Data Be the Real Hero?” pushes a familiar but misleading claim: that climate change poses a significant threat to global food production. This narrative is not only false, but it also implies just the opposite of what is true. Real-world agricultural data, and the sciences which study plant growth and food production, show that the modest warming and rainfall improvements thus far have benefitted plant growth in general and crop yields, more specifically.

Agricultural yields continue to reach record highs, and multiple scientific analyses show no evidence of imminent climate-related threats to farming. In fact, a recent peer-reviewed study published in Scientific Reports found no significant global climate-related risks to food production. Yet, Forbes and other media outlets continue to promote an alarmist view that doesn’t align with observed trends.

The study published in Scientific Reports explicitly contradicts Forbes’ fearmongering. Researchers found that climate variability has not led to a global reduction in agricultural productivity. Instead, technological advancements, better farming methods, and increased atmospheric CO₂ levels (which enhance plant growth) have more than offset any minor regional climate fluctuations. The study states:

“There is no clear trend indicating a decline in global agricultural output due to climate change. Instead, yields have continued to rise, supported by improvements in irrigation, genetics, and farming techniques.”

This aligns with broader research that shows human adaptation continues to far outpace climate-related challenges, both real and theoretical. The notion that climate change is an existential crisis for agriculture simply does not withstand scrutiny.

If climate change were truly devastating agriculture, we would expect to see declining yields and widespread crop failures. Instead, the opposite is happening. Global production of staple crops—corn, wheat, rice, and soybeans—has been consistently increasing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) both report record-setting agricultural production year after year.

For example:

  • Global wheat production is at an all-time high, despite claims that climate change is making farming more difficult.
  • Corn and soybean yields have continued their upward trend, benefiting from improved technology, CO₂ fertilization, and better farming practices.
  • Even in regions often cited as “at risk,” such as Africa and South Asia, crop production has been increasing steadily.

Forbes’ claim that food security is under threat is debunked by the reality of the greening Earth and record crop yields. The truth is that food abundance has grown dramatically over the last century, and there is no data suggesting a reversal of this trend.

Forbes’ article follows a long line of exaggerated claims about climate change and farming, many of which have been debunked. For further evidence, consider these reports from Climate Realism, which highlight real-world agricultural success despite alarmist claims:

These fact filled rebuttals, informed by government and industry data, completely refute Forbes’ claims about food security being threatened by climate change, suggesting that its speculation about the future is politically motivated. Data clearly show that agricultural productivity is increasing, not declining, and scientific research finds no significant global climate threats to farming. Instead of pushing unfounded fear, we should recognize the continued success of modern agriculture, driven by technology, adaptation, and CO₂ fertilization.

Global warming lengthens growing seasons, reduces frost events, and makes more land suitable for crop production. Also, carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer for plant life. In addition, crops also use water more efficiently under conditions of higher carbon dioxide, losing less water to transpiration.

The benefits of more atmospheric carbon dioxide and a modestly warming world have resulted in 17 percent more food being available per person today than there was 30 years ago, even as the number of people has grown by billions. Indeed, the last 20 years have seen the largest decline in hunger, malnutrition, and starvation in human history. These facts should have informed Forbes’ analysis of the impact of climate change on food security – instead the media outlet ignored declining hunger and malnutrition to flog the catastrophic climate change narrative.

The real threat to food security isn’t climate change, rather it is flawed reporting being used to encourage and provide cover for bad policies. Restrictive environmental regulations, misguided carbon reduction schemes, and anti-modern-agriculture policies pose a far greater danger to global food production than natural climate variability ever has.

Forbes, as usual, has chosen narrative over nuance. The data tell a much different story—one of resilience, progress, and record-breaking harvests. Readers deserve facts, not fear.

Climate Council: If The World Follows Trump’s Climate Lead, Australia will Have More Beach Weather

They actually said, “Extreme Heat”, but what else do you do on a hot day?

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

They actually said, “Extreme Heat”, but what else do you do on a hot day?

From drill to grill: Continued fossil fuel use puts us all in the hot seat

The Climate Council is warning that Australia’s biggest cities could face dangerously hot temperatures, unless action is taken to slow down climate change. The Council has released a ‘heat map’ which also shows that continuing to cut climate pollution can safeguard Australians from the worst impacts of soaring heat.

“The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices. And that is why today I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill.” (Applause)

US President Donald Trump, speaking in January, promised to withdraw from the Paris accord and exploit its large oil and gas reserves.

The Climate Council says if the world follows that lead and fails to cut back on burning fossil fuels, Australia will suffer from extreme heat for more than half of every year.

There are already signs of increasing heat, with last month recorded as the world’s hottest January on record.

Samantha Burgess is the deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service. She says the trend is set to continue.

“We know that the extreme events, which is where humans are most impacted, humans, society and ecosystems are most impacted by extreme events. They happen more frequently and with more intensity the warmer our climate is. So at the moment we’re at 1.3 degrees (Celsius) of warming and in 2024 we’ve seen record losses from extreme events, from hurricanes, from wildfires, from storms. These are projected to become more frequent and more intense with a warmer world.”

…Read more:

 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/from-drill-to-grill-continued-fossil-fuel-use-puts-us-all-in-the-hot-seat/rauyv5ssi

Do try to keep up Climate Council, the CSIRO tells us we have already passed the 1.5C threshold you warned us would bring disaster.

So far the only disaster I’ve experienced is I’ve lost control of the algae in my pool, though I’m slowly winning the battle, with the aid of lots of chemicals.

The beer fridge still works – so not all is lost.

Obviously if Australia was to experience more hot weather, it would only be a disaster if nobody could afford air conditioning. Sadly a number of Australians are already in this situation thanks to soaring energy prices.

If only there was a way to rapidly bring down those energy prices, so all Australians could shield themselves from the heat with affordable air conditioning.

Backbone of Climate Agenda Endangered – The Climate Realism Show #147

Big news this week as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has reportedly told the White House it should officially abandon the ruling that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare. The so-called “endangerment finding” for carbon dioxide and methane emissions forms the backbone of government regulations to “fight climate change” by heavily regulating everything from power plants to automobiles to stoves. Will President Trump repeal the endangerment finding? Can he do it unilaterally? We will discuss.

From The Heartland Institute

Big news this week as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has reportedly told the White House it should officially abandon the ruling that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and welfare. The so-called “endangerment finding” for carbon dioxide and methane emissions forms the backbone of government regulations to “fight climate change” by heavily regulating everything from power plants to automobiles to stoves. Will President Trump repeal the endangerment finding? Can he do it unilaterally? We will discuss.

Also, NOAA has “homogenized” the temperature data again. What does that mean? And does it correct the historical record, or distort it to support the alarmist global warming narrative?

In “climate grift” news, Climate Crusader Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has been caught backing legislation that funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to his wife’s nonprofit organization. How convenient, and corrupt.

And good news, everyone! The absurd plot of the climate disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow is not actually going to happen, despite alarmist “scientists” claiming it could be imminent.

Join The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to cover these stories—and more—on The Climate Realism Show. Jump in the chat during the livestream on YouTube and Rumble to get your climate questions answered, too.

Shh, don’t tell the children sea levels were higher

People with a good education are hard to fool, which is why the curriculum buries the good stuff until it disappears under a kiloton of culture, engagement and sustainability blah. Then the media (with US government Blob funding) repeats the hypnotic trance line “seas are rising due to climate change” until anyone who was accidentally taught real science, forgets it.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

People with a good education are hard to fool, which is why the curriculum buries the good stuff until it disappears under a kiloton of culture, engagement and sustainability blah. Then the media (with US government Blob funding) repeats the hypnotic trance line “seas are rising due to climate change” until anyone who was accidentally taught real science, forgets it.

How many children (how many adults) think that sea levels have been the same for a million years?  The travesty of 12 years of education is that 99% of people know nothing about 99% of history, and even less about prehistory. Every one of these defenseless souls is so easily fooled into panic attacks about seas rising a millimeter a year. “Unprecedented” they say! Don’t use the hair-dryer!

Willie Soon has some fun in his time machine zipping through ancient Greece and Roman history, where ports were built 6 crazy kilometers from the sea…

As Willie mentioned, it’s awkward that the rise started 100 years before cars, and coal power plants existed.

And after two world wars, 1.5 billion cars and 35 million planes a year, the rate of sea level rise is pretty much the same as it was in 1860 or so. It’s like we are irrelevant…

[Graphed by Joanne Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site PMSML]

Tell the children — Australian sea levels have been falling for 7000 years. There are weird clues all over the world. Like giant oysters that used to live in the streets of Taiwan 7,000 years ago. Hundreds of Pacific Islands appeared out of the sea in the last 5,000 years, and didn’t exist during the holocene peak. And 50 million years ago New Zealand was as big as India, then the ocean swallowed Zealandia. (So careless, they lost a whole continent.)

The fact is, according to 1000 tide gauges, spread all over the globe, sea levels are rising slowly at around 1 sole mm a year. And a nerd-level intense study of 60 beaches in Northern Europe showed a similar rise. By a strange coincidence the Topex/Poseidon satellite sea-level data set also showed the same tiny rates of sea level change in the 1990s — right up until they tortured the data to fit climate models. (We hear they calibrated the satellites to one sinking gauge in Hong Kong).

Other posts on Sea Levels

Geologic Hydrogen: A Game-Changer or Another Energy Mirage?

What if the Earth has been hoarding a massive energy stockpile right under our noses? That’s the provocative idea in a new study from Science Advances (December 13, 2024), Model predictions of global geologic hydrogen resources, by Geoffrey Ellis and Sarah E. Gelman. They propose that natural hydrogen—formed by geological processes deep underground—could dwarf today’s proven natural gas reserves in scale. Before we start imagining a new energy golden age, let’s unpack what this study claims, what it doesn’t, and why it might matter to anyone who cares about energy that actually works.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado0955

What if the Earth has been hoarding a massive energy stockpile right under our noses? That’s the provocative idea in a new study from Science Advances (December 13, 2024), Model predictions of global geologic hydrogen resources, by Geoffrey Ellis and Sarah E. Gelman. They propose that natural hydrogen—formed by geological processes deep underground—could dwarf today’s proven natural gas reserves in scale. Before we start imagining a new energy golden age, let’s unpack what this study claims, what it doesn’t, and why it might matter to anyone who cares about energy that actually works.

The researchers used a mass balance model to estimate how much hydrogen might be locked in the Earth’s subsurface. Their figures are jaw-dropping: a range from 1,000 to 10 billion million metric tons (Mt), with a “most probable” value of 5.6 million Mt. If just 2% of that—about 100,000 Mt—were extractable, it could meet a projected global hydrogen demand of 500 Mt per year (by 2050) for two centuries. Energy-wise, they calculate it at 14 quadrillion megajoules, nearly double the 8.4 quadrillion MJ in all known natural gas reserves.

That’s a number to make you sit up. But here’s the catch: most of it might be too deep, too scattered, or too tough to grab with today’s tools. Still, the authors argue that even a small chunk could shake things up—if we can find it and make it practical.

This may not be pie-in-the-sky stuff. Geologic hydrogen forms through natural processes like serpentinization (water reacting with iron-rich rocks) or cryptic reactions deep in the crust. Take Mali, where a field pumps out nearly pure hydrogen, or look at hydrogen seeping from Albanian mines and bubbling up in Russia and Brazil. These aren’t one-offs; they’re clues to a resource we’ve maybe just missed.

The model pegs annual hydrogen generation at 15 to 31 Mt, though the authors speculate it could soar to 25,000 Mt if deep mantle sources check out. Most of it either escapes or gets munched by underground microbes, but some might linger in reservoirs, ripe for the taking—if we can crack the puzzle.

Don’t get too cozy with those big numbers—the uncertainty is glaring. That 1,000 to 10 billion Mt range spans seven orders of magnitude, and the “most probable” 5.6 million Mt is a guess, not a drilled-and-proven reserve. Finding it? Good luck. Unlike shale gas, where the target was known and the trick was extraction, hydrogen’s hiding spots are a mystery.

Then there’s the practical side. Hydrogen’s tiny molecules leak like crazy, and while the study likens it to helium or CO₂ (which can stay trapped for ages), microbes or shaky seals could drain it before we arrive. Residence time in reservoirs is the make-or-break factor—if it doesn’t hang around, those grand totals crumble.

The study slots geologic hydrogen alongside “green” hydrogen (from electrolysis, tethered to sprawling wind or solar farms), “blue” hydrogen (from fossil fuels with shaky carbon capture), and overlooks the heavyweight: nuclear. Fission’s track record shows it can pump out steady, massive energy without the hiccups of renewables or the convoluted plumbing of carbon sequestration. Hydrogen might join the lineup, but it’s not dethroning nuclear anytime soon.

The authors suggest it could lighten the load on blue hydrogen’s carbon capture pipe dreams or green hydrogen’s land-grabbing renewable sprawl. Fair point—but energy isn’t about chasing climate unicorns; it’s about keeping the grid humming. At a “renewable” refill rate of 5 Mt per year, geologic hydrogen barely dents the 500 Mt demand by 2050. Nuclear, meanwhile, could scale up now without breaking a sweat.

So why give this a second glance? If it pans out, geologic hydrogen could be a wild card that boosts energy abundance without the baggage of wind farms, solar deserts, or endless green gimmicks. It’s not about some low-carbon crusade—it’s about raw potential. A resource that might double natural gas’s energy punch deserves attention, especially if it dodges the politics of renewables and the headaches of carbon capture.

For now, it’s a tantalizing “maybe.” The authors call for more research, and they’re right—too much is up in the air to bank on it. Think early shale gas: a long shot that hit big, but only after years of grind and breakthroughs. Hydrogen’s got no such playbook yet. It could be the next energy frontier—or just another overhyped distraction to keep the grant wheels turning.

Could this be a shale-style revolution, or is it another shiny object for the dreamers? The answer’s in the rocks—and a few well-aimed drills.

Miliband and the Design for Britain’s Ruin

A red prince, blinded by ideology, deaf to criticism, glib and disingenuous, indifferent to the impacts felt by millions: Ed Miliband epitomises the political establishment’s divorce from reality and the public. Championed by Miliband, climate and energy policies have undermined the UK’s industrial capacity, agricultural production and economy. Prices are rising. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are going bust or moving overseas. And it is going to get worse…

From The Daily Sceptic

By Ben Pile

A red prince, blinded by ideology, deaf to criticism, glib and disingenuous, indifferent to the impacts felt by millions: Ed Miliband epitomises the political establishment’s divorce from reality and the public. Championed by Miliband, climate and energy policies have undermined the UK’s industrial capacity, agricultural production and economy. Prices are rising. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are going bust or moving overseas. And it is going to get worse…

Climate change is falling down the global political agenda. Governments across the world have realised that radical emissions-reduction policies carry huge economic, social and political costs. In Britain, however, the Government has decided that its plan for ‘growth’ is subordinate to Miliband’s desire to make the country a “clean energy superpower by 2030”. In the face of very clear evidence of policy failure such as rising prices, the Government is doubling down on Miliband’s false promises of “jobs”, “lower bills” and “energy security”.

With the Daily’s Sceptic’s help to get the word out, Climate Debate UK is producing a full-length documentary film about the failure of the climate agenda. And we need your help.

Featuring interviews with energy analysts, economists, journalists and historians, this film will explain in clear detail that climate and energy policies have failed because they are fundamentally at odds with reality. Irrational economic policies have been created in an attempt to overcome this problem, but these policies have also failed, creating huge expense for homes and businesses. And as has been seen elsewhere, these failures are in turn leading to political crises. With the Government signalling its inability to accept and respond to criticism of its flagship policy agenda, how will this crisis unfold?

We are at a critical moment. Ever more people are coming to the view that Net Zero is a terrible idea. But the Government – with perhaps the weakest popular mandate in history – is clinging to it at all costs. This film will help to focus attention on the most crucial criticisms of the green agenda’s many failures, and bring them to a wider audience.

We need your support to help produce this film to the highest standards, and to ensure that no opportunity to expose the green agenda’s shortcomings are missed. Please take a look at our trailer below:

Is Climate Change Killing Australia’s Beachfront Norfolk Island Pines?

Norfolk Island Pines, an evolutionary cousin of Hoop Pines, are tropical weather loving trees which grow to enormous heights in poor quality salty beach soil. They are capable of thriving from the cold southern end of Australia all the way into the far North. They are also grown in Hawaii and other warm weather locations.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Hint – they are blocking the view.

Extreme weather and vandalism impact beachfront Norfolk Island pines

In short: 

Norfolk Island pine trees have become a feature of Australia’s coastline but they are at risk from a number of factors. 

A Gold Coast researcher says a severe weather-fuelled fungus and urban stresses are infecting pines across the city.

What’s next? 

A horticulturist says he is more worried that the trees are being chopped down or poisoned for the sake of residents’ views. 

…

One cause of the trees’ ill health is a nasty fungus from the Botryosphaeriaceae family.

Ms Petrova said it thrived in dry environments and spread through Burleigh Heads’ pine population in the 2018-2019 drought.

…

Ms Petrova said more extreme weather due to climate change, including drought, could be increasing fungal growth.

…

He said he was increasingly being called to pines that had been purposely poisoned.

“We’re talking about 60 to 80 trees at a time being poisoned, huge areas of beach fronts all around Sydney Harbour,” Mr Varley said.

…Read more: 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-26/extreme-weather-vandalism-impact-norfolk-island-pine-trees/104949926

Norfolk Island Pines, an evolutionary cousin of Hoop Pines, are tropical weather loving trees which grow to enormous heights in poor quality salty beach soil. They are capable of thriving from the cold southern end of Australia all the way into the far North. They are also grown in Hawaii and other warm weather locations.

Local governments love them because their strong root structure stabilises the beach.

Million dollar beachfront property owners not so much – because that beautiful view you fell in love with in many cases has been obscured by tree hugging councils who seem to think taller is better.

They are beautiful trees – tall, lots of shade, and a soft bed of pine needles supplied with every tree, great homes for Australia’s beautiful songbirds, and a place for young people who want a little privacy. The trees are resilient – they don’t mind being topped to keep the height down.

But Australia’s local governments over the past few decades seem to have forgotten that part of the social contract, beachfront trees nowadays tower over many of Australia’s favourite swimming spots.

Even in my area trees have been poisoned.

It is a difficult crime to solve. In many cases it might be difficult to detect – clever tree killers wouldn’t drill holes in the trees, they would use a sprinkle of readily available heavy metal sulphate poison which reacts with salt in the ground to form almost insoluble chloride salts, a chemical which due to insolubility has good residence in salty soil, exhibits high plant toxicity without being a serious poisoning risk for humans in the quantities used, and which would cause the tree to become distressed rather than instantly killing it, leading the tree to apparently die a natural death, losing its foliage and succumbing to fungal infections. An added bonus for the tree murderer, the residual poison in the soil would also kill whatever the local government planted to replace the dead tree.

I wonder if I just solved the mystery? Maybe it isn’t climate change after all.

Climate Censorship? (CAAD pushing on a string)

A new international group, Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), advertises itself as the policer against “climate change misinformation and disinformation.”

From Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Sounds like the alarmists are losing when they call in the thought police. And they are losing.”

A new international group, Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD), advertises itself as the policer against “climate change misinformation and disinformation.”

We are a global coalition of over 50 prominent climate and anti-disinformation organisations, calling for decisive, unified action against widespread climate misinformation and disinformation.

Why? CAAD continues:

Climate change misinformation and disinformation create a distorted perception of climate science and solutions; meanwhile they weaken the public mandate for effective domestic and international policies aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Nothing subjective about it. CAAD’s “Universal definition” is stated:

Climate disinformation and misinformation refers to deceptive or misleading content that:

Undermines the existence or impacts of climate change, the unequivocal human influence on climate change, and the need for corresponding urgent action according to the IPCC scientific consensus and in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

Misrepresents scientific data, including by omission or cherry-picking, in order to erode trust in climate science, climate-focused institutions, experts, and solutions; or

Falsely publicises efforts as supportive of climate goals that in fact contribute to climate warming or contravene the scientific consensus on mitigation or adaptation.

Their recommendation?

Governments should encourage social media, advertising technology, and broadcast and publishing companies to take these steps:

1 Acknowledge climate disinformation as a major threat damaging the information ecosystem, hindering climate action and policy, risking public safety and health and further widening societal and political divides.

2 Produce, publicize and resource a transparent company plan to stop the spread of climate disinformation.

3 Report on the prevalence of climate disinformation on their products and services.

4 Allow researchers access to all data needed to conduct research and prevent the monetisation of climate disinformation.

5 Implement platform-wide inoculation efforts to expose mis- and disinformation.

6 Implement strong labor policies for content moderation staff.

7 Produce and enforce transparency, safety, equity, and accountability measures related to company use of AI and other emerging technologies.

Government? Big Brother? The one institution that has a legal monopoly on the initiation of force? Shame on Climate Action Against Disinformation.

Losing Arguments

Sounds like the alarmists are losing when they call in the thought police. And they are losing. WUWT is the world’s most viewed climate information site. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. reigns as the go-to for bottom-line science. LinkedIn and X are populated with skepticism and debate with all-things-climate. DeSmog’s climate disinformation database cannot keep up with all the individuals and groups that criticize climate alarmism and point out exaggerations and failed predictions.

And who won the U.S. election and is replacing the Podesta-Biden-Harris ‘all-of-government’ climate policy with none-of-government? Don’t even mention “climate change” and “decarbonization” in polite company.

Course Correction?

New opportunities abound for questioning climate alarm and debating climate policy. Climate censorship is dead on arrival in a new political world. CAAD should change its name and call out the exaggerators and climate cult. A new organization could reject the Sunrise Movement, Climate Defiance, and other groups who are expected to rev up their civil disobedience in 2025? That would turn down the heat.

Appendix: Pushing Censorship against Heartland Institute

On October 24, 2024, a group of far Left organizations wrote an open letter to Google’s “Trust and Safety Team” to censor the Heartland Institute. [1]

“We are urgently asking Google to fully enforce its existing policy and immediately and permanently demonetize Heartland Institute and all other outlets that continue to spread climate disinformation on YouTube,” the letter read. Continuing:

As evidenced by the above research and reporting, Google ads are directly contributing to the spread of outright lies about our planet’s changing climate– with dire impacts…. We urge immediate and thorough action to end Google’s monetization of accounts that spread and profit from climate disinformation….

Sorry, but the bullying and censorship days are over. It is cool to question the heat of climate change activism, intellectually and politically.

——————–

[1] Accountable Tech; Action Center on Race & the Economy; Center for Countering Digital Hate; Check My Ads; ClimateVoice, a project of Tides Center; Ekō; Friends of the Earth; Greenpeace USA; Kairos Fellowship; The Tech Oversight Project; UltraViolet; Union of Concerned Scientists

——————–

Worst January In Two Years for UK Car Industry

Britain’s car industry has suffered its worst January for two years amid concerns about sluggish demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and the threat of US tariffs.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

From the Telegraph:

Britain’s car industry has suffered its worst January for two years amid concerns about sluggish demand for electric vehicles (EVs) and the threat of US tariffs.

The number of cars produced last month fell to 78,012, compared with 98,811 a year earlier, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT).

Mike Hawes, the lobby group’s chief executive, warned that manufacturers were battling rising costs and uncertainty, particularly around demand levels for EVs and Donald Trump’s plans to slap tariffs on vehicles shipped to America. Some 80pc of cars made in the UK are destined for export.

Full story here.

According to SMMT, electric vehicles (inc hybrids) increased by about 400 units, ICE units fell by more than 17200, a drop of 27%.

Although they do not mention it specifically, it is clear that manufacturers are cutting back on production for the home market because of the threat of ZEV mandate fines.

https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-production-down-in-january-as-sector-faces-global-headwinds/

Trump Teases Enormous Staff Cuts at Environmental Protection Agency

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signaled that his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be poised to make major job cuts.

From Watts Up With That?

The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation

Ireland Owens
Contributor

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signaled that his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may be poised to make major job cuts.

Trump told reporters during the first presidential cabinet meeting of his second term that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin may cut roughly 65% of his agency’s workforce, according to multiple reports. The Trump administration has already started to lay off federal workers en masse from various agencies in order to deflate the government bureaucracy and reduce waste in federal spending.

“I spoke with Lee Zeldin, and he thinks he’s going to be cutting 65 or so percent of the people from environmental, and we’re going to speed up the process too at the same time,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday. “He had a lot of people that weren’t doing their job, they were just obstructionists, and a lot of people that didn’t exist.”

The Trump administration established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) on Jan. 20 to eliminate wasteful spending in the federal government. The department claimed to have already identified $65 billion in wasteful and even fraudulent spending. (RELATED: Turns Out Top Execs Of Org Picked For Billions By Biden EPA Are Big Time Democrat Donors)

Zeldin recently highlighted the most appalling mismanagement of taxpayer funds at the EPA, noting that billions were allegedly sent to left-wing nonprofits, even some linked to Democratic voter mobilization efforts under the previous presidential administration.

“President Trump, DOGE, and Administrator Zeldin are committed to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse across all agencies,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“After recently identifying $20 billion fraudulent in spending, Administrator Zeldin is committed to eliminating 65% of the EPA’s wasteful spending.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a statement provided by a White House spokesperson to the DCNF.

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.