Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
As Trump’s energy agenda comes to focus, Texas is already leading the way.
In his massive flurry of executive actions after being sworn in, President Donald Trump made clear that he intends to follow the Texas pro-energy model for energy success based on deregulation, innovation, and exploration.
Perhaps most consequentially, he declared a national energy emergency and put permits for oil and gas infrastructure on a fast track. He also signed executive orders to roll back oil and gas restrictions in Alaska and along our nation’s coasts and restarted the approval process for liquid natural gas exports. These actions — with more certainly to come — will incentivize a marked increase in energy production and exploration here in America.
But it would be wrong to think of these actions as mere energy policy. On the campaign trail, President Trump regularly spoke about how domestic energy is the key to success on the seemingly unrelated issues of global stability, clean air, clean water, and lower prices on utilities, housing, groceries, and more.
Take inflation and the economy. Energy impacts the price of everything else because it takes energy to manufacture products, grow crops, and move goods to stores, consumers, and construction sites. High energy prices drive up the costs of transportation, groceries, housing, healthcare, and everything else the American people rely on. To solve the affordability crisis, we must solve the energy crisis.
The power of American energy can also be seen in environmental protection. The U.S. has one of the cleanest economies in the world, which means to have a clean environment we must produce as much energy as possible in the U.S. This is especially the case with natural gas. When American production goes up, usage of cleaner energy goes up and dirtier energy goes down.
President Donald Trump already proved this was the case. During his first term, he cut red tape and empowered U.S. energy producers. Not only did these moves increase domestic energy production, under President Trump emissions declined. In fact, the Biden-Harris administration had higher emissions than Trump did despite years of heavy-handed green energy policies. Clearly our LNG production and export capacity is as much an environmental issue as it is an energy and cost issue.
On the foreign policy front, America’s leverage in the world plummets if other nations rely on Russia, Iran, or Venezuela for their energy needs instead of on the U.S. If we want a free and stable world, we must produce enough energy not only for ourselves, but also enough to keep our allies strong and adversaries in check.
Not to mention according to the International Energy Agency, AI, cryptocurrency, and data centers could double their 2022 energy consumption levels by 2026. To take advantage of these technologies that will drive American prosperity in the next generation, we must increase energy production substantially.
Simply put, America’s strength at home and abroad demands more energy, and Trump is already starting to deliver.
If President Trump’s pro-energy agenda — an agenda that drives down prices, promotes global stability, fuels technological innovation, and delivers a cleaner environment — sounds familiar, that’s because it’s exactly what Texas has been doing for decades.
Texas is the friendliest state for energy production. We are the top energy producer in the nation, and in 2023, we produced 27% of our nation’s clean natural gas. We have long-welcomed energy exploration, offshore drilling, and innovative extraction techniques like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
But we also haven’t rested on our laurels on oil and gas. With regard to renewable sources, we have the second most solar installations of any state, more nuclear reactors than all but five states, and even produced enough hydroelectric power to serve nearly 3 million Texans.
With our all-of-the-above energy approach, Texas has already proven that Trump’s energy agenda will be a success. In recent years, the Texas economy has grown well over twice as fast as America as a whole while delivering comparatively lower energy bills than other states and increasingly clean air. Costs are down, economic strength is up, and our environment is clean.
Texans know that when our energy industry thrives, our citizens thrive. As President Trump continues to embrace the full potential of American energy, our nation as a whole will start to experience the Texas success story.
Catherine Frazier is a communications strategist based in Texas and founder of Eberly Advisors. She previously served in senior roles for Texas Gov. Rick Perry and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Orsted, the Danish owned wind power company, has been in deep trouble for a while now, as the combination of rising costs, the end of cheap money and shrinking subsidies have wrecked profitability.
Orsted, the Danish owned wind power company, has been in deep trouble for a while now, as the combination of rising costs, the end of cheap money and shrinking subsidies have wrecked profitability.
Billions in capital write downs have already occurred, but now the cash is drying up:
Today, Ørsted’s Board of Directors approved adjustments to the company’s business plan towards a focused capital allocation to strengthen the capital structure. The company will prioritise the most value-accretive growth opportunities through a self-funded investment programme.
During 2024, Ørsted delivered full-year results in line with expectations, reaching an EBITDA excluding new partnerships and cancellation fees of DKK 24.8 billion. In addition, commissioning of 2.4 GW of renewable capacity took place, 3.5 GW of offshore wind capacity was awarded in the UK, and the final investment decision on the offshore wind farm Baltica 2 in Poland was made last week. All of which contribute to the strategic progress of the company.
Despite delivering full-year results in line with expectations and the strategic progress, Ørsted has experienced challenges, especially related to the US offshore wind portfolio, which have led to further pressure on our credit metric. This development, in combination with the wider renewable industry challenges, has led Ørsted to reduce its investment programme towards 2030 by around 25 % compared to its previous strategic ambition on a like-for-like basis. The reduced investment programme is in line with our commitment to ensure a capital structure that can support a solid investment grade credit rating
We’ll reduce our investment programme towards 2030 through a stricter, more value-focused approach to capital allocation. We do this to ensure a stronger balance sheet, supporting a solid investment grade rating, and to ensure that we only invest our capital in the most financially attractive opportunities. “Our number one priority throughout the next three years will be to deliver on our committed 8.4 GW offshore wind construction programme, which will almost double our installed offshore wind capacity. The market remains challenging, but delivering on this programme will solidify our position as the undisputed global leader in offshore wind.”
These adjustments will not affect the execution of the 9 GW of renewable projects that Ørsted is currently constructing. The construction portfolio brings line of sight to an expansion of renewable capacity from 18 GW to more than 27 GW.
The previous ambition for installed renewable capacity of 35-38 GW by 2030 and the targeted EBITDA (excluding new partnerships) of approx. DKK 39-43 billion in 2030 have been discontinued.
In layman’s language, they are carrying on with 9 GW of projects already under construction, given that it would be far too costly to back out now.
But that’s it! The other 11 GW of new capacity planned has gone by the wayside.
This is necessary for two reasons:
1) They do not have the cash to invest
2) The new projects would not be profitable, given the current state of the market.
Orsted is the leading offshore wind developer in the UK, and probably the world.
In last year’s CfD auction, AR6 , Orsted won a contract to build the offshore wind farm Hornsea Project Four, with a capacity of 2400 MW.
It has however not yet been given the Final Investment Decision by Orsted. As construction has not started yet or even been approved, it is to be presumed that it will be one of the projects on the chopping block.
This would leave a massive hole in Ed Miliband’s plans to triple offshore wind capacity by 2030.
AR6 brought in 3363 MW of offshore wind, so three quarters looks like disappearing just like that.
Moreover it seems impossible that Orsted will bid at the next allocation round, AR7, and there appear to be no other major players willing to step up.
ScottishPower Renewables have already stated that East Anglia Two, which won the other AR6 contract, will be their last in that part of the North Sea. And Vattenfall pulled out of their CfD for the 1400 MW Norfolk Boreas in 2023.
The days of easy money for offshore wind developers, made possible by obscene subsidies are long gone. It already appear that AR7 is running well behind schedule, which suggests that there is a lack of interest amongst developers for the prices on offer.
My guess is that Miliband will be forced to substantially raise the strike prices if he wants more capacity.
President Trump has struck the Biden administration’s climate and energy policy like a hurricane – from increasing energy exploration and extraction, to letting 1,000 employees at the Environmental Protection Agency know they could be fired at any time, to taking all mentions of climate change from the website of the Department of Agriculture, and more. But what will be the Trump Effect on the global climate agenda? Will the dedication to reorder the economies and societies of the world to “save the planet” being to crumble? And if so, which country will give up first?
President Trump has struck the Biden administration’s climate and energy policy like a hurricane – from increasing energy exploration and extraction, to letting 1,000 employees at the Environmental Protection Agency know they could be fired at any time, to taking all mentions of climate change from the website of the Department of Agriculture, and more. But what will be the Trump Effect on the global climate agenda? Will the dedication to reorder the economies and societies of the world to “save the planet” being to crumble? And if so, which country will give up first?
President Trump has struck the Biden administration’s climate and energy policy like a hurricane—ranging from increasing energy exploration and extraction to informing 1,000 Environmental Protection Agency employees that they could be fired at any time, to removing all mentions of climate change from the Department of Agriculture’s website, and more. But what will be the “Trump Effect” on the global climate agenda? Will the dedication to reorganizing the world’s economies and societies to “save the planet” begin to crumble? And if so, which country will be the first to give up?
The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely, welcome our Canadian friend Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, to explore those questions. We will also cover some of the “Crazy Climate News of the Week.”
Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET and join us in the chat where we will share your comments and answer your questions.
Many of these stations underwent a site shift, many in the middle of the study period, typically from a Post Office to an Airport. This has affected the distribution over time of these hottest heatwaves. There is no reliable method to adjust this by a single step change because the magnitude of such a step is not now knowable.
That first article shows 160 graphs of hottest heatwave temperatures over the years when records have been kept, for Adelaide, Alice Springs, Brisbane, Cape Leeuwin, Darwin, Hobart, Longreach, Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. This second article deals with some patterns of interest.
I wrote the articles because many Establishment sources make claims like this one from the Climate Council of Australia, 2014:
“Climate change is already increasing the intensity and frequency of heatwaves in Australia. Heatwaves are becoming hotter, lasting longer and occurring more often.”
Using practically all years of data recorded, I examined each of 4 heatwave durations of 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. The raw data are from the Climate Data Online CDO source by the Bureau of Meteorology.
The first half of the heatwave numbers is compared to the last half. The first half numbers are subtracted from the second half numbers. If there is warming, the difference is positive. If there is cooling, the difference is negative.
This example summarises the method by a graph.
The first half average equals the second half average, so in this simple case no 5-day heatwave warming is shown for Adelaide.
These results summarise all 40 cases.
ADELAIDE
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
41.42
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
41.68
0.26
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
39.14
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
39.19
0.06
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
37.43
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
37.37
-0.07
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
34.57
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
34.54
-0.03
ALICE SPRINGS
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
43.08
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
42.94
-0.15
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
41.16
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
41.37
0.21
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
40.22
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
40.54
0.32
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
39.90
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
40.27
0.37
BRISBANE
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
37.45
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
36.04
-1.41
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
34.08
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
32.77
-1.32
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
33.78
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
32.52
-1.26
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
32.42
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
31.43
-1.00
C_LEEUWIN
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
33.88
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
34.91
1.03
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
28.92
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
30.07
1.15
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
27.06
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
27.92
0.86
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
25.32
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
25.99
0.67
DARWIN
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
36.95
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
36.67
-0.28
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
35.97
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
35.64
-0.33
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
36.94
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
36.67
-0.27
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
35.12
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
34.66
-0.46
HOBART
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
34.86
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
36.49
1.62
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
29.68
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
30.62
0.94
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
27.15
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
28.04
0.89
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
24.86
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
25.86
1.00
LONGREACH
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
44.12
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
43.94
-0.18
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
43.18
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
42.85
-0.33
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
42.44
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
42.17
-0.27
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
41.33
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
41.13
-0.20
MELBOURNE
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
40.55
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
40.46
-0.10
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
36.58
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
36.93
0.35
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
34.00
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
34.18
0.17
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
30.69
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
30.99
0.30
PERTH
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
40.58
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
42.40
1.82
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
37.90
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
40.17
2.27
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
36.38
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
38.65
2.28
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
34.01
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
36.41
2.40
SYDNEY
DIFF LAST MINUS FIRST
FIRST HALF 1-DAY
38.02
SECOND HALF 1-DAY
38.62
0.60
FIRST HALF 3-DAY
32.68
SECOND HALF 3-DAY
33.32
0.64
FIRST HALF 5-DAY
30.72
SECOND HALF 5-DAY
31.35
0.63
FIRST HALF 10-DAY
28.78
SECOND HALF 10-DAY
29.53
0.75
GRAND AV
0.35
POSITIVES
24.00
NEGATIVES
16.00
The naïve interpretation is that overall, if there is evidence of heatwaves getting hotter, it is small. 40% of cases show cooling, 60 % show warming. The overall warming is about 0.35 ͦC, which is of similar size to the uncertainty of the numbers.
In scientific experiments, it is often the case that a simple first look will either encourage or discourage further investigation. Here, there is little enthusiasm to look further. The pattern is not indicative of future health problems, for example.
Those familiar with time series numbers such as these will question the data quality. As I noted in my first article,
NOTE 1: Many of these stations underwent a site shift, many in the middle of the study period, typically from a Post Office to an Airport. This has affected the distribution over time of these hottest heatwaves. There is no reliable method to adjust this by a single step change because the magnitude of such a step is not now knowable.
A conclusion is that those who seek to show heatwaves getting hotter need to ask how to combat these simple contrary results without the use of subjective adjustments that typically lead to disagreement about methods, motives and manipulations.
Why not accept that there is next to no simple evidence of Australian heatwaves getting hotter and leave it at that?
LONGER?
I took the Top 40 heatwave numbers for all 10 cities, CDO not ACORN-SAT, to examine 1-Day, 3-Day, 5-Day and 10-Day heatwave patterns.
In theory, if the longer 10-Day heatwave types were increasing compared to 1-Day or 3-Day, then counts of various heatwave numbers should show this. I also examined the number of days in the first half of the station history versus the last half of the total years. Adelaide, the first station examined in this way, met the change point in 1956.
HEATWAVE
1ST PART
2ND PART
DAY-LENGTH
# of DAYS
# of DAYS
ADELAIDE
1
19
21
3
20
20
5
20
20
10
20
20
This example shows that first, the number of Top 40 heatwaves in the first part of the observations is about the same as in the second half. Second, the table shows similar counts for heatwaves of all durations, so the longer 10-Day types were not increasing compared to 1-Day etc, so the inference is that these Adelaide heatwaves were not becoming longer. (The Top 40 selection is used because if all years were examined, the split would always be equal and could not show anything of interest.)
Not all stations trend the same as Adelaide.
PERTH
HEATWAVE
1ST PART
2ND PART
DAY-LENGTH
# of DAYS
# of DAYS
1
8
32
3
5
35
5
6
34
10
5
35
Perth indicates that while the “hotter” heatwaves were more abundant in later years, the share of longer heatwaves remains much the same as shorter ones.
Here is the complete table of all ten stations. I have added the average temperature of each subset, which is a check on paperwork but does not add to understanding because the differences are so small.
HEATWAVE
1ST PART
2ND PART
Average T
Average T
DAY-LENGTH
# of WAVES
# of WAVES
First Part
Second Part
HALF WAY YEAR
ADELAIDE
1
19
21
43.37
43.73
1956
3
20
20
41.61
41.69
5
20
20
40.4
39.97
10
20
20
37.24
37.05
ALICE SPRINGS
1
26
14
44.99
44.61
1952
3
23
17
43.08
42.96
5
22
18
42.28
42.07
10
21
19
41.95
41.85
BRISBANE
1
24
16
39.79
39.4
1956
3
30
10
35.47
35.1
5
31
9
35.04
34.88
10
30
10
33.48
33.28
C LEEUWIN
1
17
23
37.3
37.43
1966
3
13
27
32.03
32.1
5
14
26
29.35
29.42
10
15
25
27.05
26.98
DARWIN
1
27
13
37.97
37.77
1955
3
27
13
36.86
36.57
5
26
14
37.98
37.72
10
31
9
35.83
35.55
HOBART
1
15
25
38.17
38.74
1971
3
20
20
32.78
33.66
5
14
26
29.72
29.44
10
17
23
27.87
27.39
LONGREACH
1
24
16
45.74
45.82
1961
3
26
14
44.77
44.54
5
24
16
44.1
43.83
10
21
19
42.81
42.64
MELBOURNE
1
22
19
43.4
43.51
1941
3
19
21
39.84
39.78
5
21
19
37.6
37.23
10
19
21
33.18
33.6
PERTH
1
8
32
43.08
43.57
1961
3
5
35
41.49
41.39
5
6
34
39.79
39.94
10
5
35
37.81
37.39
SYDNEY
1
16
24
41.21
41.53
1942
3
14
28
35.87
35.65
5
13
27
33.48
33.3
10
12
28
30.89
31.01
AVERAGE
19.425
20.65
The conclusion is that by this method of analysis, there is no indication that heatwaves are becoming longer.
NOTE: This analysis used essentially all of the raw time and temperature data available. Different conclusions are possible if some adjustments are used. For example, if only data from the last 40 years is used, there might be an indication of heatwaves becoming longer. (I have not tested this).
Alternatively, a different conclusion might be reached if adjusted ACORN-SAT temperatures were used. However, these approaches open the gate to cherry picking, selective argument and subjective changes that have to date been a major cause of disagreement between groups of investigators.
MORE FREQUENT?
The data base that I have constructed produces the year in which a putative heatwave happened and the highest average maximum temperature it reached over 1, 3, 5 and 10 consecutive days. It does not sort the number or intensity of more than one heatwave each year, intense enough to be counted among competitors from other years.
Software to detect more than one heatwave a year is complex and it is dependent on the definition of a heatwave. Different countries use different definitions of “heatwave”. Some definitions are precise enough to allow computing, others are vague and can be flexibly adjusted to suit an outcome. Also, questions arise, for example, should one infill a prospective significant 10-day heatwave that has a missing value in the centre? Infill with what temperature? And, when is a 10-Day heatwave better treated as two adjacent 5-Day heatwaves?
It is possible to crawl manually through the 50,000 or so days for each of these 10 stations to detect the stronger heatwaves apart from the primary one that is there because others in the same year are excluded by the “remove duplicates” function on Excel applied to all years examined in a sorting from highest heatwave temperature to lowest. I have examined the tedium required and rejected that option.
Maybe Artificial Intelligence can provide a workable solution. Over to you, readers.
However, I know of no literature that counts the number of heatwaves over time in a manner that concludes that they are becoming more frequent. Links welcomed from readers.
DISCUSSION:
To the extent that these 10 weather station localities can represent Australian climate features, there is little to no evidence in this analysis with its limitations, that heatwaves are becoming hotter or longer with more analysis required about “more frequent”.
There is little comparable scientific literature in conflict with this conclusion. Many cited studies commence after 1950; many invoke convoluted definitions of heatwave; and many seem affected by a wrong piece of logic.
The wrong logic. There is general scientific acceptance that global temperatures have increased by 1 to 1.5 ͦ C in the last 120 years or so. Many publications contain the assertion or assumption that this temperature increase has also underlined the heatwave maximum temperature pattern, expecting it to show a similar increase. It does not, in the data studied here. The conduct of heatwaves differs from the conduct of general temperature observations. In the case of these 10 Australian stations, there is essentially no change over time demonstrated in the maximum average heatwave temperatures reached.
Remember that sea surface temperatures seldom exceed 30 ͦC . There is a mechanism of convective instability that creates an upper limit. While no mechanism appears to have been advanced for an upper limit on heatwave temperatures over land, it should not be discounted from future research.
Further, there is a widespread theme in the literature that the heatwave is an event related to the location at which it happens. The heatwave patterns of coastal Adelaide and Melbourne are strongly influenced by Hadley cells that cause hot winds from central Australia to move to the South and South-East towards the coastal cities, sometimes elevating local average temperatures by up to 15 ͦ C. How hot it gets is dictated by how hot the centre of Australia is at the time, how close to optimum is the direction of travel of hot air from the centre to the coast, how intense is the weather system that created a fast, low heat loss transport from the hot centre to the coast.
SUMMARY.
Simple raw temperature data analysis does not support the widespread global or national claim that heatwaves are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent.
Because simple analysis does not support that claim, those who continue the claim must rely on non-simple analysis. All studies about Australia use the same data set as here, so arrival at different conclusions must depend on subjective assumptions and on them being acceptable.
During Trump 1.0 the appointed EPA Director summarized the false dichotomy long plaguing the agency: “If you are for the Environment, you must be against Development; and if you are for Development, you must be against the Environment.” In reality, a balance must be struck, and a new administration intends to find it. There has been much gnashing of teeth in the legacy media over this month’s dismissal of scientists from EPA advisory boards, without mentioning the same housecleaning happened in 2021 when Biden regime took over. Now we have an official announcement about the new EPA direction and priorities.
During Trump 1.0 the appointed EPA Director summarized the false dichotomy long plaguing the agency: “If you are for the Environment, you must be against Development; and if you are for Development, you must be against the Environment.” In reality, a balance must be struck, and a new administration intends to find it. There has been much gnashing of teeth in the legacy media over this month’s dismissal of scientists from EPA advisory boards, without mentioning the same housecleaning happened in 2021 when Biden regime took over. Now we have an official announcementabout the new EPA direction and priorities. Text in italics with my bolds and added images.
WASHINGTON – On February 4, 2025, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency’s Powering the Great American Comeback Initiative, to achieve the agency’s mission while energizing the greatness of the American economy. This plan outlines the agency’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin. The newly announced Powering the Great American Comeback initiative consists of five pillars that will guide the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and beyond:
Pillar 1: Clean Air, Land, and Water for Every American
“Every American should have access to clean air, land, and water. I will ensure the EPA is fulfilling its mission to protect human health and the environment. In his first term, President Trump advanced conservation, reduced toxic emissions in the air, and cleaned up hazardous sites, while fostering economic growth for families across the country. We remain committed to these priorities in this administration, as well as ensuring emergency response efforts are helping Americans get back on their feet in the quickest and safest way possible. We will do so while remaining good stewards of tax dollars and ensuring that every penny spent is going towards advancing this mission,” said Administrator Zeldin.
Pillar 2: Restore American Energy Dominance
“Pursuing energy independence and energy dominance will cut energy costs for everyday Americans who are simply trying to heat their homes and put gas in their cars. This will also allow our nation to stop relying on energy sources from adversaries, while lowering costs for hardworking middle-income families, farmers, and small business owners. I look forward to working with the greatest minds driving American innovation, to ensure we are producing and developing the cleanest energy on the planet,” said Administrator Zeldin.
Pillar 3: Permitting Reform, Cooperative Federalism, and Cross-Agency Partnership
“Any business that wants to invest in America should be able to do so without having to face years-long, uncertain, and costly permitting processes that deter them from doing business in our country in the first place. It will be important for the EPA to work with our partners at the state and federal levels to ensure projects are being approved and companies can invest billions of dollars into our nation. Streamlining these processes, while partnering with businesses to follow the necessary steps to safeguard our environment, will incentivize investment into our economy and create American jobs,” said Administrator Zeldin.
Pillar 4: Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World
“As we rapidly advance into this new age of AI, it is important that the United States lead the world in this field. Those looking to invest in and develop AI should be able to do so in the U.S., while we work to ensure data centers and related facilities can be powered and operated in a clean manner with American-made energy. Under President Trump’s leadership, I have no doubt that we will become the AI capital of the world,” said Administrator Zeldin.
Pillar 5: Protecting and Bringing Back American Auto Jobs
“Our American auto industry is hurting because of the burdensome policies of the past.
Under President Trump, we will bring back American auto jobs and invest in domestic manufacturing to revitalize a quintessential American industry. We will partner with leaders to streamline and develop smart regulations that will allow for American workers to lead the great comeback of the auto industry,” said Administrator Zeldin.
Footnote:
The Trump Administration not only cut “environmental justice” programs at the Environmental Protection Agency, they put nearly 200 staffers on leave.
According to reports, the staffers were called into a meeting on Thursday afternoon where they were informed that they were being placed on leave.
“Effective immediately, you are being placed on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. This administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose,” the email stated, according to Politico.
“Career staff made determinations on which Office of Environmental Justice employees had statutory duties or core mission functions,” EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said in a statement. “As such, 168 staffers were placed on administrative leave as their function did not relate to the agency’s statutory duties or grant work. EPA is in the process of evaluating new structure and organization to ensure we are meeting our mission of protecting human health and the environment for all Americans.” Source.
A “fast reactor” is a type of nuclear reactor that uses fast neutrons to sustain a chain reaction, while a “breeder reactor” is a specific design of fast reactor that produces more fissile fuel (like plutonium) than it consumes, meaning it “breeds” new fuel.
A “fast reactor” is a type of nuclear reactor that uses fast neutrons to sustain a chain reaction, while a “breeder reactor” is a specific design of fast reactor that produces more fissile fuel (like plutonium) than it consumes, meaning it “breeds” new fuel.
Once commissioned, India will only be the second country after Russia to have commercially operating Fast Breeder Reactors.
We all like to make use of our trash, which, if possible, is generally called “recycling.” When we discuss using our nuclear fuel after it has been through a reactor one time, there are two terms commonly used: “reprocessing” and “recycling.” When we reuse aluminum cans, we simply melt them down and form them into new sheets of aluminum, which I call “recycling.” When we try to use old cars that are trashed, we go through a process to remove gasoline, plastic, tires, rubber, wires, and anything else that is not steel before the remains of the car can be used, which I call “reprocessing.” Recycling is a direct process to reuse something, but reprocessing requires more steps to remove impurities.
Early reactor nuclear engineers knew that reclaiming the useful parts of SUNF was desirable. In fact, it was the least imposing engineering problem of the entire fuel cycle. Both recycling and reprocessing were considered, but reprocessing became the method of choice.
France reprocesses all its SUNF and has ever since its nuclear program began in the early 1960s with no harm to people. This chemical process removes the plutonium from the SUNF and combines it with uranium to create fuel that can be used once more in a reactor. This is not “recycling” because it involves many chemical steps to remove impurities. However, after one reuse, there is not enough material left to salvage, and the fuel is retired for permanent storage, but still over 80% of that spent fuel remains unused.
The United States Government encouraged private companies to reprocess US commercial SUNF, but President Carter suddenly disallowed the process in 1979. This bankrupted the existing private businesses at a great economic loss to the investors. Even though President Reagan reinstated permission to reprocess in 1982, investors no longer trusted the Government and were hesitant to invest again. Furthermore, reactor owners decided that mining, refining, and enriching uranium was a cheaper process than reprocessing. Economics doomed SUNF to be stranded on reactor sites with no other proposed solution than to “eventually” store it underground. The government attempted to “solve” the problem, but now, more than 50 years have passed with no solution.
The fiction writers of nuclear power disasters created a specter of doom, which convinced the public to revile nuclear power after the mid-1970s. Ironically, we are fortunate that our government was so inept. This SUNF is extremely valuable, and we are lucky that we still have access to it above ground.
The trick to fission is to split vast numbers of large atoms with neutrons. Nature features physics that allows more neutrons to be released after each fission, making it possible for continuous energy production called a chain reaction. Each fission releases 50,000,000 times more energy than the chemical combustion of a single atom of coal. Uncontrolled, this power creates a powerful bomb. Controlling the chain reaction, however, turned out to be easily manageable, and with the support of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, the “Atoms for Peace” program was born. Like all engineering issues, there is room for innovation. “Thermal neutrons” (slow-moving neutrons) have a much better chance of being captured by the right uranium isotope, causing a better chance for fission. Water, due to the hydrogen atoms, turns out to be ideal to slow down neutrons and transfer the heat created to do work (make electricity). The first reactors, therefore, were called “light water reactors” since normal water is, indeed, “light water” (no extra neutrons in the hydrogen atoms of the water).
The Navy chose this method as a power source for their aircraft carriers and submarine nuclear reactors, so it made sense to transfer their existing engineering designs to commercial reactors. The Navy’s seven-decade safety track record with nuclear-generated electricity to support national security began before the formulation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and all of its regulatory roadblocks. Commercial nuclear power plants are utilizing the light water reactor design pioneered by the US Navy.
“Fast” indicates that neutrons do not lose all their energy to “thermal” levels. This allows isotope breeding to commence and boost the energy yield at least 30 times what light water reactors offer in the same volume of fuel. Fast reactors directly convert SUNF to energy, so it is “recycling.” There are other advantages to fast reactors. They can operate at atmospheric pressure, making them immune to pressure leaks. They can produce much more heat making them more efficient and allowing them to directly cause the production of many useful chemicals without being converted to electricity and back to heat. Fast Reactors are “intrinsically safe” in the sense that their designs allow the reactors to shut themselves down, if necessary, without human intervention. Best of all, the designs are mature, and some have already been operated for energy production. Since the material is already mined and refined, it is 100% clean. So, you may be wondering why we do not use this technology. Good thinking.
In the name of safety and security, the US Government has become the nanny of the energy production and transmission businesses in the US. However, in the 70 years of using nuclear power, there has never been even one attempt to use reactor fuel (new or slightly used) to make a bomb or a terrorism device (feared for national security) or to harm anyone in the normal commercial production of nuclear power (safety). We are suggesting that fast reactor recycling is already safe and secure.
To do that, we all need to convince the US Government that we want innovation in energy production. We prefer to have companies compete to give us the best deal for electric power. Since there is no industry with a better safety record worldwide in over 70 years of normal commercial operation of nuclear reactors, why should we not get our wish? After all, citizens run the US government’s actions. Maybe not directly, but certainly in their power to petition their elected officials and replace them if they ignore their “bosses” or, worse yet, allow industry to pay them to make beneficial business deals that are detrimental to the citizens. To prevent that from happening, citizens need to understand their predicament. Only each individual citizen can get the education they need to plot their most beneficial situation. Considering that data centers, cryptocurrency, and massive central computing are forecasting massive increases in demand for electricity, we either keep the same electricity production levels and let big data bid up the price to a dollar a kWh (they claim they can make a profit at that level) or massively increase our production to compete electricity closer to the penny per kWh retail cost. The data boys want power, and they want nuclear power. So, why not let them have it?
Existing stockpiles of SUNF contain 270 years of equivalent existing electricity demand in the US. The value of this electricity is $100 TRILLION at 10 cents per kWh. Technology exists to make it happen. Companies are already capitalized privately with existing, tested designs today. The only thing holding them back is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and their US Government handlers.
You, the reader of this article, now know more than 99% of all US citizens about fast reactors and their promise. We must pass this along to others and establish the power the Founding Fathers vested in “we the people” to blast through the lobbyists and Members of Congress to get what will benefit citizens. Recycle now, or forever, and keep paying more and more for the basic need for electricity.
Last month a group of scientists published a paper in Nature stating that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s. Helped by publicity in the Daily Sceptic, the story went viral on social media, although it was largely ignored in narrative-driven mainstream publications. The collapse of the Gulf Stream, a key component of the AMOC, is an important ‘tipping point’ story used to induce mass climate psychosis and make it easier to impose the Net Zero fantasy on increasing resentful and questioning populations.
Last month a group of scientists published a paper in Nature stating that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) had shown no decline in strength since the 1960s. Helped by publicity in the Daily Sceptic, the story went viral on social media, although it was largely ignored in narrative-driven mainstream publications. The collapse of the Gulf Stream, a key component of the AMOC, is an important ‘tipping point’ story used to induce mass climate psychosis and make it easier to impose the Net Zero fantasy on increasing resentful and questioning populations. Obviously, reinforcements to back up such an important weaponised scare needed to be rushed to the front and the BBC has risen to the challenge. The AMOC “appears to be getting weaker” state BBC activists Simon King and Mark Poynting. Their long article is a classic of its kind in trying to deflect scientific findings that blow holes in the ‘settled’ narrative.
In the Nature paper, three scientists working out of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution stated that they came to their conclusion showing the stability of the AMOC after examining heat transfers between the sea and the atmosphere. It was noted that the AMOC had not weakened from 1963 to 2017, “although substantial variability exists at all latitudes”. This variability is the basis for much of the Gulf Stream fear-mongering. The BBC notes that the presence of larger grains of sediment on the ocean floor suggests the existence of stronger currents, pointing to a “cold blob” in the Atlantic that appears to have cooled of late. Thin pickings, it might be thought, to run an article titled ‘Could the UK actually get colder with global warming?’ The Woods Hole scientists note that records “are not long enough to differentiate between low frequency variability and long-term trends”.
The Nature story is not the only recent scientific finding that suggests the Day After Tomorrow alarm about the AMOC is a tad overdone. In 2023, Georgina Rannard of the BBC reported that “scientists say” a weakening Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025. There was no later reporting, needless to say, of subsequent work from a group of scientists at the US weather service NOAA that discovered the huge flow of Gulf Stream tropical water through the Florida Straits had remained “remarkably stable” for over 40 years.
Of course the BBC, along with most of the legacy media, has form as long as your arm when it comes to producing deflective copy seemingly designed to head off inconvenient scientific findings. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest and best observed collection of tropical coral in the world. Any sign of ill health is a boon for green propogandists who argue that warming measured in tenths of a degree centigrade will destroy an organism that has survived for millions of years in temperatures between 24-32°C. For the last three years, coral on the GBR has hit recent record levels with scarcely a mention in mainstream media. Days before last year’s record was announced, the places where journalism goes to die were full of stories from a paper that conveniently noted climate change posed an “existential threat” to the reef. “The science tells us that the GBR is in danger and we should be guided by the science,” Professor Helen McGregor from the University of Wollongong told Victoria Gill of BBC News. Professor McGregor’s statement was an opinion readily broadcast by the BBC, a courtesy that does not appear to have been extended to the fact that coral on the GBR was at its highest level since detailed observations began.
It beggars belief that the BBC and all its fellow alarmists can run this stuff with a straight face knowing that crucial scientific information is missing from their reports. Important findings from reputable sources emerge about the current stability of the Gulf Stream and the response is to blow more smoke around that raises wholly unnecessary fears.
The main concern is that the AMOC “could suddenly switch off”, state King and Poynting. To back up their statement and provide the inevitable political message they note the comment of Matthew England, Professor of Oceanography at the University of South Wales: “We’re playing a bit of a Russian roulette game. The more we stack up the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the more we warm the system, the more chance we have of an AMOC slowdown and collapse.” Now look what you plebs have done with your steak chomping, gas-guzzling central heating and naff holidays in Benidorm, is an unpleasant subtext here.
Of course, keen and dedicated followers of climate alarmists will note a master craftsman at work. In 2023, aided by 35 million computer hours and using an improbable rise in temperature of up to 4°C in less than 80 years, Professor Matthews suggested that there was a dramatic slowdown in deep Antarctica ocean currents. Melting Antarctica ice could lead to a 40% slowdown in just 30 years. The fact that Antarctica has barely warmed in 70 years is ignored.
Who needs Hollywood sci-fi blockbusters when we have the BBC.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
Pragmatic rent-seeking by crony capitalists is a major problem in the United States. Political capitalism allows “the worst of get on top,” while misallocating resources from consumer to governmental ends. Think of Ken Lay of Enron. James E. Rogers of Public Service of Indiana/Duke Energy. John “beyond petroleum” Browne … Ben van Beurden of Royal Dutch Shell… GE’s Jeff Immelt… T. Boone Pickens … John Hofmeister. The wind and solar crowd. Even Kelcy Warren, co-founder and chairman of Energy Transfer, the subject of this post.
“Opponents of oil and gas have increasingly targeted energy projects through misinformation, protests, lawfare and misinformation, hurting a strategic U.S. industry that employs more than 11 million Americans, and negatively impacting our country’s economic stability.” (Energy Transfer, below)
Pragmatic rent-seeking by crony capitalists is a major problem in the United States. Political capitalism allows “the worst of get on top,” while misallocating resources from consumer to governmental ends. Think of Ken Lay of Enron. James E. Rogers of Public Service of Indiana/Duke Energy. John “beyond petroleum” Browne … Ben van Beurden of Royal Dutch Shell… GE’s Jeff Immelt… T. Boone Pickens … John Hofmeister. The wind and solar crowd. Even Kelcy Warren, co-founder and chairman of Energy Transfer, the subject of this post.
As a Houston Chronicle editorial stated on Monday:
A few of Trump’s Texas-based allies and donors stand to make a killing off Biden’s climate law. Energy Transfer, led by Trump booster Kelcy Warren, is a partner in Texas’ HyVelocity hydrogen hub, which won more than $1 billion in Department of Energy grants. Occidental Petroleum, whose CEO raised millions for Trump, won a $1 billion grant to build a carbon capture hub near Corpus Christi. Even Trump’s BFF Elon Musk admitted that the IRA’s tax credits for battery manufacturing could make as much as $250 million per quarter for Tesla. [1]
ExxonMobil Takes the Political Bait
Sadly, ExxonMobil has gone into the political capitalism camp–with bad results. In an attempt to try to appease the enemy of fossil fuels (futile: the more they get, the more they want), the last two decades has seen the storied company invest unsuccessfully in algae oil (renewable biofuels) and hydrogen. Its carbon capture and storage play is at risk with the possible end of tax subsidies with the new administration.
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond (1993–2004) smartly avoided such taxpayer bets and explained why; his successors succumbed to the climate lobby and have hurt shareholders, employees, and the general public. Raymond was also transparent and correct on the climate issue, stating in 2010:
We in the petroleum industry are not dismissing the global climate change issue. But I don’t believe anyone should have the moral authority to deny people the opportunity to improve their way in life by arbitrarily depriving them of the means…. I hope that the governments of this region will work with us to resist policies that could strangle economic growth.
“Take Back the Truth”
Amid the political capitalism, there is room to applaud moments of free market energy. Enter Energy Transfer’s new website, Take Back the Truth, which the company describes as
dedicated to setting the record straight, not only on oil and gas – the lifeblood of our modern society – but our projects and our company. Oil and gas have enabled the benefits we enjoy in our everyday lives. Opponents of oil and gas have increasingly targeted energy projects through misinformation, protests, lawfare and misinformation, hurting a strategic U.S. industry that employs more than 11 million Americans, and negatively impacting our country’s economic stability.
The picture/logo below includes no industrial wind turbines or solar arrays–just below-ground pipeage amidst CO2-enriched greening.
Energy Transfer’s news releases detail the ongoing lawsuit against Greenpeace and push back against their critics. The best defense is offense!
Final Comment
Energy Transfer’s Kelcy Warren is to be commended for playing offense against the Progressive Left. In this regard, he joins Liberty Energy/Chris Wright in a fight for basic property rights and for energy for the masses, not the climate elite. Both Warren and Wright hark back to the first philosopher of energy, Alex Epstein.
There is a new politics in the air in the U.S. but also around the world. Amid the progress and upside, however, there are government interventions that still need correction. Firms such as Energy Transfer need to accept the end of some favorable-to-them intervention (HyVelocity hydrogen hub) to be true and consistent. And to do their part in slashing Leviathan.
———————-
[1] “Private Sector Could Scuttle Energy Scheme.” Houston Chronicle (February 3, 2025).
The reality is somewhat different, as satellites show that global temperatures have been in freefall in recent months. Since September 2024, they have fallen by a full half a degree Celsius.
Last month was not even the hottest January, as January 2024 was 0.4C hotter.
Last month was the world’s warmest January on record raising further questions about the pace of climate change, scientists say.
January 2025 had been expected to be slightly cooler than January 2024 because of a shift away from a natural weather pattern in the Pacific known as El Niño.
But instead, last month broke the January 2024 record by nearly 0.1C, according to the European Copernicus climate service.
The reality is somewhat different, as satellites show that global temperatures have been in freefall in recent months. Since September 2024, they have fallen by a full half a degree Celsius.
Last month was not even the hottest January, as January 2024 was 0.4C hotter.
Scientists have now said that much of the recent spike in temperatures has been caused by reduced sulfate emissions from shipping thanks to new clean air regulations.
Wildfires
The BBC lead their article with a photo of the LA wildfires. The impression, which they clearly want to create, is that these fires are connected to global temperatures.
It proves that their whole article cannot be taken seriously.
Methane emissions have become a focal point of the climate debate, triggering absurd agricultural regulations negatively affecting farming communities worldwide. Targets for abuse are ruminant animals, including cattle and sheep, that produce methane (CH4) through enteric fermentation — a natural digestive process that converts grass into protein-rich meat and milk for human consumption.
Methane emissions have become a focal point of the climate debate, triggering absurd agricultural regulations negatively affecting farming communities worldwide. Targets for abuse are ruminant animals, including cattle and sheep, that produce methane (CH4) through enteric fermentation — a natural digestive process that converts grass into protein-rich meat and milk for human consumption.
Even farmers from my family in India are possible targets of anti-methane assaults on agriculture that have been made in the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, the U.K., and many other countries.
Efforts to reduce emissions include forcing farmers to give up acreage and to pay high climate taxes. Dairy farmers are being required to feed cows a supplement known by the trade name Bovaer, which inhibits the production of methane.
Some major supermarkets in the U.K. — like Tesco, Morrisons and Aldi — already have sourced milk from medicated cows. Although a small portion of consumers boycotted this milk, most had little choice but to buy it.
Is such regulation of agricultural methane emissions justified? Not according to an updated paper titled “Methane and Climate” by two physicists, doctors William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden of Princeton University and Toronto’s York University, respectively.
First published in 2020 by the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia, the updated paper meticulously dismantles the prevailing narrative that methane emissions from agriculture are a threat to the planet. By carefully analyzing the physical properties of methane and its interactions with Earth’s atmosphere, the authors demonstrate that the warming potential of methane is negligible.
The Science Behind Methane’s Limited Impact
At the heart of the two professors’ analysis is comparison of the radiative forcings of methane and carbon dioxide. Radiative forcing is the difference in the net upward thermal radiation from the Earth to space through a transparent atmosphere and the lesser radiation through an otherwise identical atmosphere with greenhouse gases. In other words, it is used to understand how greenhouse gas in the atmosphere blocks some of the thermal radiation from escaping Earth into outer space.
Using radiative transfer calculations, the authors examine methane’s contribution to the greenhouse effect. They find that one additional atmospheric methane molecule causes about 30 times more warming than one additional CO2 molecule.
This is because the greenhouse warming of relatively abundant CO2 is much more heavily “saturated” than that of methane. At higher concentrations, identical molecules get in each other’s way and don’t warm as efficiently as for lower concentrations. Nonetheless, atmospheric methane concentrations are increasing about 300 times slower than CO2 concentrations, so the annual warming from methane is about 1/10 that of CO2.
Methane is fairly common as the primary molecule making up natural gas and as a byproduct of various natural processes, including the decaying of organic material in swamps and forests. However, its relative presence in the atmosphere is small and its warming potential is ultimately inconsequential.
This stands in stark contrast to the apocalyptic warnings issued by some politicians and media outlets. Far from being a “super pollutant,” as it is often described, methane emerges from this analysis as a minor player in the climate system.
A Call for Rational Policy
What, then, is the path forward? Policymakers should align their decisions with the best available science. The findings make it clear that the climate models often used to justify methane regulations exaggerate its impact.
By ignoring the nuanced interplay between methane, water vapor, and other atmospheric components, climate models create a distorted picture of climate change that fuels unnecessary panic and ill-advised policies.
Farmers are not the villains of the climate story; they are essential stewards of the land who provide food for billions. Punitive measures that undermine their livelihoods are not only unjust but also dangerously counterproductive.
For farmers around the world and for billions who consume their products, this study offers a glimmer of hope amidst the irrational, even immoral, war on methane. It is time to reject the scapegoating of agriculture and to embrace sensible policies that recognize the indispensable role of farmers in feeding the planet.
The public should demand more rigor, more honesty, and more humility in those undertaking the complex science of climate change. It is time to dispense with top-down regulations from political bodies like the United Nations that advance agendas through scaremongering rather than rigorous scientific methods.
This commentary was originally published at American Thinker on February 3, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
You must be logged in to post a comment.