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.
Coffee is “harmful” to humans, the European Union has said in a regulation banning the use of caffeine as a pesticide, prompting fears of a coffee ban.
Coffee is “harmful” to humans, the European Union has said in a regulation banning the use of caffeine as a pesticide, prompting fears of a coffee ban. The Telegraph has the story.
Brussels bureaucrats said there was scientific evidence to back up claims that “caffeine is harmful to humans if swallowed”.
Their report said the substance, a central component of coffee, could cause adverse effects on the heart, hydration and body temperature, as well as triggering anxiety and sleep problems.
There was not sufficient research to judge whether caffeine is a risk for people who work with it or live near where it is processed, it added.
The report was produced to reinforce a decision to ban caffeine from being used to kill snails and slugs around cabbage and potato patches.
But it has prompted fears that Brussels regulations could one day target coffee, a staple of the European way of life.
Anders Vistisen, a Danish MEP and chief whip of Patriots for Europe said: “More unwelcome and needless inference from meddling bureaucrats in Brussels!
“What is this all leading to? Are they seriously going to eventually force us to drink decaffeinated coffee? It’s becoming ridiculous.
“Nobody thinks smoking and whiskey are good for you, but they add pleasure to many people’s lives,” he added.
The Trump administration has issued a stop-work order to U.S. government scientists, effectively excising them from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next major report, due in 2029. The decision pulls American expertise and funding from a process that’s long leaned on both to prop up its dire pronouncements. For those who’ve watched the IPCC churn out one overheated forecast after another, there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing the climate establishment forced to limp along without its biggest benefactor.
Delegates and experts attend the 45th Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) opening ceremony in Guadalajara, Mexico on March 28, 2017.
The main agenda items of the 45th Session of the IPCC will consider the outline for the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Oceans and the Cryosphere and the outline for the Special Report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. / AFP PHOTO / Hector Guerrero (Photo credit should read HECTOR GUERRERO/AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump administration has issued a stop-work order to U.S. government scientists, effectively excising them from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next major report, due in 2029. The decision pulls American expertise and funding from a process that’s long leaned on both to prop up its dire pronouncements. For those who’ve watched the IPCC churn out one overheated forecast after another, there’s a certain satisfaction in seeing the climate establishment forced to limp along without its biggest benefactor.
The directive halts federal scientists’ contributions to the IPCC’s seventh assessment report, a multi-volume undertaking that typically mobilizes thousands of researchers across years to paint a picture of imminent catastrophe. NASA’s chief scientist, Kate Calvin, was tapped to co-chair an international meeting in Hangzhou, China, next week, where the report’s scope was to be hammered out. That’s off the table now, and the meeting itself hangs in limbo—organizers must be wondering how to proceed without one of their star players.
“Dr. Calvin will not be traveling to this meeting,” a NASA spokesperson said. NASA denied CNN’s request for an interview with Calvin.
An unnamed scientist involved in the effort told CNN they’re unsure what this means for the planned work. One imagines the uncertainty stings a bit more when your whole career’s been hitched to the IPCC wagon.
The person involved in the report told CNN they were “not sure what this means for the planned work going forward, or if US scientists will participate in the writing of the IPCC reports.”
The U.S. has historically been a pillar of the IPCC’s operations, supplying not just talent but a hefty chunk of the budget needed to keep its machinery humming. These reports—laden with warnings of soaring temperatures, melting ice caps, and “deadly, costly consequences”—have been the bedrock of global climate policy, from the Paris Agreement (promptly abandoned by Trump on day one of his term) to endless rounds of UN summits. The IPCC’s clout depends on its ability to project authority, and American involvement has lent it a sheen of credibility. Without that, the 2029 report risks looking like a thinner, less convincing shadow of its predecessors. Climate advocate Harjeet Singh insists the IPCC remains “unbiased” and “evidence-based,” decrying the loss of U.S. collaboration. Skeptics, meanwhile, might note that an outfit prone to amplifying computer-modeled nightmares over real-world data could use a breather—or at least a reality check.
“The IPCC is the backbone of global climate science, providing the world with unbiased, evidence-based insights needed to confront the climate crisis,” said Harjeet Singh, a climate advocate and founding director of Satat Sampada Climate Foundation.
“The decision to exclude US scientists significantly undermines this collaborative effort and risks compromising the process at a time when robust climate action is needed more than ever,” he told CNN in a statement.
This isn’t Trump’s first rodeo with the climate crowd. His exit from the Paris Agreement in 2017 (and again in 2025) set the tone, and this latest move doubles down on that skepticism. The timing adds a layer of irony: just as the IPCC was gearing up for its Hangzhou confab, the administration yanked the plug, leaving Calvin sidelined and the process scrambling. It’s a dry kind of poetic justice for those who’ve long questioned the IPCC’s track record—think hockey-stick graphs that wobble under scrutiny, Himalayan glaciers that refuse to vanish on cue, or tipping points that keep tipping past their deadlines. The group’s not dead, of course; it’ll soldier on with whatever it can muster from Europe, China, and the usual suspects. But without Uncle Sam’s stamp of approval and deep pockets, the final product might carry less sway—and that’s a prospect worth savoring.
For the IPCC, the road ahead just got bumpier. The Hangzhou meeting, if it happens, will lack a key voice, and the years-long grind to 2029 will test how well the organization can function on a leaner diet. Trump’s decision doesn’t dismantle the climate machine outright, but it does strip away some of its horsepower. Those who’ve spent decades poking holes in the IPCC’s narrative can sit back and watch the fallout with a quiet grin. The alarmists will howl about “denial” and “sabotage,” no doubt, but the Oval Office isn’t losing sleep over it. Neither, frankly, are we.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to bury the unscientific idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Dropping this “endangerment finding” represents the beginning of the end for the great global warming hoax.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is about to bury the unscientific idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Dropping this “endangerment finding” represents the beginning of the end for the great global warming hoax.
Under President Barack Obama, the agency in 2009 declared the molecule that enables plants to grow and humans to breathe an enemy of the planetary thermostat. This decree vested the EPA with authority to regulate CO2 as if it were a nasty substance equivalent to black soot, lead, radon or asbestos.
But the public never embraced any of the austerity measures peddled as a remedy for this supposed ailment. Consumers didn’t want to pay extra taxes on cars, nor did they endorse the abolition of affordable sources of electricity. Even Senate Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to vote for the Green New Deal.
The greenhouse effect should already be cooking the world – but something keeps it tame.
The surface temperature would be at least 20C hotter than it is, if Greenhouse Gas was the only forcing which matters.
Regular readers of WUWT might already know the secret sauce which keeps the Earth’s surface survivable, but even if you already know the answer, Ridd has a gift for explaining context and complexity, so the video is still well worth watching.
Well worth a few minutes of your time.
Dr Peter Ridd has been researching the Great Barrier Reef since 1984, has invented a range of advanced scientific instrumentation, and written over 100 scientific publications. Since being fired by James Cook University for raising concerns about science quality assurance issues, Peter Ridd receives no payment for any of the work he does.
One of Britain’s biggest wind farms was handed £65m to slash its output by nearly three quarters last year, amid warnings that the country’s “staggeringly inefficient” power grid is pushing up household bills.
The Seagreen offshore wind farm in the North Sea – the largest of its kind in Scotland – had its output curtailed for 71pc of the time it was due to operate in 2024, grid data show.
Britain’s ‘staggeringly inefficient’ grid is pushing up bills, warns energy boss.
One of Britain’s biggest wind farms was handed £65m to slash its output by nearly three quarters last year, amid warnings that the country’s “staggeringly inefficient” power grid is pushing up household bills.
The Seagreen offshore wind farm in the North Sea – the largest of its kind in Scotland – had its output curtailed for 71pc of the time it was due to operate in 2024, grid data show. The Telegraph has the story.
This meant that of 4.7 terawatt hours of power its turbines generated, 3.3 terawatt hours were effectively discarded – with owner SSE paid by grid operators each time this happened.
SSE also owns the Viking wind farm in the Shetlands, which had 57pc of its output curtailed last year at a cost of £10m. It was only switched on in August.
The two sites have been paid another £1.5m so far this year for cutting output.
Grid operators pay wind farms to switch off when they are generating but there is not enough network capacity to transport their power.
But these curtailment payments ultimately go on to bills, in the form of network charges, and are paid by millions of households and businesses.
Last year, separate analysis by the Renewable Energy Foundation charity found that wind farms were paid almost £400m to turn off their turbines.
On Friday, SSE said grid upgrades were coming that would result in “more and more of this power flowing into the economy, powering homes and businesses for decades to come”.
A spokesman said: “Seagreen and Viking wind farms are incredible assets that give Britain the ability to harness huge volumes of its own clean, homegrown energy that can drive economic growth while reducing reliance on volatile imports.”
It came as the Government on Friday announced a slew of changes designed to attract more wind farm investment in the UK.
The proposals will make it easier for developers to secure contracts for difference (CfDs), the main mechanism used to support renewable energy schemes, and will extend their duration beyond the current 15 years.
But the figures will fuel a row that is raging in the energy industry over controversial proposals to introduce regional electricity pricing in the UK, replacing the current national price system.
Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, compared the existing arrangement to “every region being forced to charge London house prices” and warned it would add £5bn to bills by the end of this decade.
Writing for The Telegraph, he said: “Britain suffers from a staggeringly inefficient market, reminiscent of the wine lakes and butter mountains of the old European Common Agricultural Policy.
Did an anonymous climate scientist just admit to conspiring to defraud the US Government into providing funds for a climate paper, by turning the very title of their paper into a lie?
The Trump administration is stripping away support for scientific research in the US and overseas that contains a word it finds particularly inconvenient: “climate.”
…
Researchers said work mentioning climate is being particularly targeted. One environmental scientist working in the western US who did not want to be named said their previously awarded grant from the Department of Transportation for climate-adaption research had been withdrawn, until they retitled it to remove the word “climate”.
“I still have the grant because I changed the title,” the scientist said. “I was told that I needed to do so before the title of the grant was published on the US DoT [Department of Transportation] website in order to keep it. The explanation was that the priorities of the current administration don’t include climate change and other topics considered ‘woke’.
…
Kaarle Hämeri, chancellor of the University of Helsinki in Finland, said the descriptions for Fulbright grants had been changed to remove or alter the words “climate change”, as well as “equitable society”, “inclusive societies” and “women in society”.
Did an anonymous climate scientist just admit to conspiring to defraud the US Government into providing funds for a climate paper, by turning the very title of their paper into a lie?
How many climate scientists are willing to bend the truth to keep their access to federal grant money?
How much money are dissembling students and faculty members at the University of Helsinki receiving from the US Government?
How deep is the rot, if the Chancellor of a major university appears to think it is OK to talk positively about students attempting to deceive the US Government, by rewording the titles of their grant applications to evade restrictions imposed by the Trump Administration? Though to be fair, maybe the chancellor did condemn bending the truth to win Fulbright grants, and Guardian reporter Oliver Milman forgot to include the Chancellor’s condemnation in his article.
I looked up the Fulbright Programme, the grant programme allegedly being abused according to the Chancellor or the University of Helsinki.
Fulbright Program
…
The program was founded by United States SenatorJ. William Fulbright in 1946 and has been considered one of the most prestigious scholarships in the United States.[1]The program provides approximately 8,000 grants annually, comprising roughly 1,600 grants to U.S. students, 1,200 to U.S. scholars, 4,000 to foreign students, 900 to foreign visiting scholars, and several hundred to teachers and professionals.[2]
At least some climate scientists appear to think it is acceptable to dissemble and deceive the US Government, in order to secure of maintain access to federal grant money.
The US Government needs to examine what advice is being given to climate scientists seeking grants and who is providing that advice, in case the advice to change the title of the climate science paper to evade research grant restrictions originated from officials working for the US Government.
DOGE is going to have to dig a lot deeper than the titles of research grant proposals, to prevent dissembling climate scientists from making a mockery of the Trump Administration’s efforts to direct how federal grant funds are disbursed.
If alarmist climate scientists are willing to dissemble and deceive to maintain their access to federal grant money, what else are they lying about?
I am not suggesting climate scientists should be prevented from doing research, I fully support the right of even the most alarmist climate scientists to raise their own money from state governments or other organisations or individuals who think climate change is a threat. Publishing woke nonsense is free speech, and free speech is protected by the US Constitution. But no government is or should be obligated to spend taxpayer dollars on research they do not think is a priority.
At least there is one positive from this Guardian Article. Thanks to Guardian reporter Oliver Milman, we now have the name of a US Government funded overseas research grant programme which is allegedly being abused by dissembling climate scientists – the Fulbright Program.
Sensational new findings published in Nature Communications effectively blow the politicised wildfire climate change scam out of the water. Far from human-caused climate change making wildfires worse across the United States and Canada, it was found that recent fires occurred at a rate of only 23% of that expected from a review of the previous historical record going back to the 17th century. The researchers note that a current “widespread fire deficit” persists across a range of forest types and the areas burned in the recent past “are not unprecedented” when considering the multi-century perspective.
Sensational new findings published in Nature Communications effectively blow the politicised wildfire climate change scam out of the water. Far from human-caused climate change making wildfires worse across the United States and Canada, it was found that recent fires occurred at a rate of only 23% of that expected from a review of the previous historical record going back to the 17th century. The researchers note that a current “widespread fire deficit” persists across a range of forest types and the areas burned in the recent past “are not unprecedented” when considering the multi-century perspective.
Needless to say, there has been no mention of these finding in narrative-driven mainstream media. In fact one Nature pre-publication peer-reviewer commented on the clear danger the paper presented to this important climate scares promoting the Net Zero fantasy. “I see this paper as potentially being used by deniers of climate change impacts,” the reviewer notes. “Consider if possible some rephrasing to put even more emphasis on impact rather than on burned area,” is the suggestion. In other words, concentrate on the emotional impact of individual fires, allowing legacy media, aided by junk computer modelled attribution studies, to concentrate on speculation and fearmongering rather than the facts. Another clear example of what might be termed Ultra Processed News, designed to make the individual consumer sick with worry and induce mass climate psychosis.
A group of 19 scientists led by Sean Parks from the USDA Forest Service used accurate data from the North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN) to gain precise annual data on the areas burnt. Interestingly, it was found that recent ‘record’ fire years such as 2020 burned 6% of NAFSN sites and this compared with the 29% recorded in 1748. “Overall, contemporary fires (1984-2022) burned NAFSN sites less frequently than fires during the historical reference period (pre-1880), indicating that a substantial fire deficit persists and is still accumulating across many forests and woodlands across the United States and Canada,” it was noted.
In a conclusion that should (but it won’t) destroy the non-stop mainstream wildfire fearmongering, the scientists found that based on the fire scar record, the NAFSN sites would have been expected to burn 4,346 times from 1984-2022, yet they burnt only 989 times, a figure that is just 23% of what would have been expected under the historical fire regime. While these factual findings are dramatic, they should not come as a great surprise. Much to the chagrin of climate activists and the attribution artists, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has detected no human involvement in fire weather activity to date and expects none going forward to 2100.
In a recent article for the BBC on the Los Angeles fires, Matt McGrath ignored the evidence showing that they were made worse by local Democrat eco-mismanagement and pointed out the conclusion that a warmer world increased the chances of devastating wildfires occurring. The inevitable Net Zero plug followed: “As more fossil fuels continue to be burnt, those chances will continue to rise.” In the world of Ultra Processed News, the actual facts are often missing from the pre-determined narrative. Chief climate bunkum writer at the Guardian Damian Carrington might also care to read Parks et al. before he repeats a recent claim that “globally, scientists agree that climate change is increasing the global risk of wildfires starting and spreading”.
Back to the facts. The prevalence of non-fire years was found to occur “significantly more often” in the contemporary period than in the historic record as shown across all NAFSN sites. In fact, this might be an underestimate given the relatively low sample size in the first few decades of the historical period. Current fire occurrence is still far below the historical levels despite large and ‘record-breaking’ recent fire years, such as 2020 in the western US. “Individual years with particularly widespread fire during the 1984-2022 period were not unprecedented in comparison with the active fire regimes of the historical period across most of the study region,” state the researchers. Areas burned by wildfires during the last few decades “remain relatively low”, they note.
The graph below shows that US wildfires were much worse in the past and its veracity is confirmed by Parks et al. Dramatic improvements are shown since the end of the 1920s. But in 2021, at the height of the Biden Green Mania, the chart was withdrawn by the National Interagency Fire Centre and replaced with information from the conveniently low point of 1983. Excuses were made that the past data were unreliable.
The replacement of course meant that trusted messengers could report that wildfires had been increasing in the US, creating the obligatory ‘record’ years. The American meteorologist and founder of the climate site Watts Up With That? Anthony Watts was less than impressed. “This wholesale erasure of important public data stinks, but in today’s narrative control culture that wants to rid us of anything that might be inconvenient or doesn’t fit the ‘woke’ narrative, it isn’t surprising,” he observes.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’sEnvironment Editor.
President Donald. J. Trump’s seismic shift in energy policy will be felt far beyond U.S. borders. His withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, expanding American oil and gas exports, terminating the Green New Deal and eliminating the prospect of carbon tariffs offers a lifeline to developing nations grappling with chronic energy poverty.
President Donald. J. Trump’s seismic shift in energy policy will be felt far beyond U.S. borders. His withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, expanding American oil and gas exports, terminating the Green New Deal and eliminating the prospect of carbon tariffs offers a lifeline to developing nations grappling with chronic energy poverty.
When the United States pivots sharply, other nations reassess their positions. Nowhere will a change in the dynamics of energy policy be more welcome than in developing nations whose imperative to increase access to energy conflicts with pressures to submit to Western climate lords’ anti-growth, anti-humanistic, and dystopian Paris climate agreement.
Many developing nations have long expressed frustration with the climate agenda’s constraints on their economic growth. India and China, for instance, have consistently maintained that they need flexibility to determine their own domestic energy mix, emphasizing that access toaffordable fossil fuels is crucial for lifting millions out of poverty.
Similarly, nations across Africa have argued that their development priorities must include utilizing their natural resources – including coal, oil and natural gas – to meet people’s basic needs.
Take Nigeria, for example. With its significant natural gas reserves, the country has been caught between international pressure to limit the use of hydrocarbons and the urgent need to provide electricity to its growing population. International financial markets friendlier to fossil fuels could accelerate Nigeria’s plans to monetize its natural gas resources and expand domestic power generation.
As Yemi Osinbajo, a former Nigerian vice president, said, “Africans need more than just lights at home. We want abundant energy at scale so as to create industrial and commercial jobs. To participate fully in the global economy, we will need reliable, low-cost power.”
Global Implications of U.S. Energy Expansion
One of the most notable effects of Trump’s energy policy is an anticipated surge in exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the U.S., which is to resume processing permit applications for new LNG projects interrupted by former President Biden.
For developing countries, this means reliable energy at competitive prices – a stark contrast to the intermittent power of solar and wind projects that have been favored by climate-compliant financial institutions.
Energy poverty remains a crippling obstacle in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America. According to the InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), nearly 800 million people worldwide are without electricity, while 3 billion rely on smoky biomass for cooking.
By moving to increase the global supply of LNG, Trump offers an avenue for these nations to transition toward cleaner-burning natural gas. Benefits will include less deforestation, less indoor air pollution and a chance for more economic growth.
India has already invested in LNG terminals in the U.S. and will be increasing imports as demand grows from its population of 1.4 billion.
Moreover, an increased supply of LNG will stabilize global reserves and reduce the vulnerability of energy-importing nations to geopolitical disruptions. Energy abundance is a prerequisite for stability and prosperity – a reality that developing countries know all too well and the climate obsessed seemingly undervalue.
No Carbon Tariffs: A Boon for Developing Economies
While many pundits harp on Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports, they don’t recognize – or at least fail to acknowledge – that many in the developing world are likely to be happy that carbon tariffs of the climate agenda won’t be part of Trump’s tax regime.
Carbon tariffs, a darling of the climate crowd on both sides of the Atlantic, are designed to penalize the producers – and users – of carbon-intensive goods. In practice, however, they act as a regressive tax on developing nations, many of which lack the financial and technological means to “decarbonize” their industries.
For countries like India, which Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar has argued must prioritize economic growth over rigid climate targets, the carbon tax-free future represents a much-needed reprieve. It levels the playing field, allowing developing economies to compete in global markets without bearing the disproportionate burden of forced emissions reductions. Yes, Trump has threatened other tariffs, but those can be resolved through diplomacy.
Fossil fuels still account for over 80% of the world’s primary energy consumption, with countries like China, India and Indonesia expanding their infrastructures to produce, import and use hydrocarbons despite pledges to meet impossible climate goals.
With Trump’s bold move, these nations will no longer feel the need to hide behind the veneer of climate appeasement.
Trump’s rejection of climate orthodoxy matches the aspirations of developing nations striving to ensure energy security and overcome poverty. Expect these countries to be emboldened to more openly pursue their preferred energy strategies and leave the Paris agreement themselves.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia, U.K., a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
We have just escaped the Climate and Nature Bill by the skin of the teeth, but it seems the Germans have not been so lucky.
Benny Peiser sent me an essay (translated) by Robert von Loewenstern, which tells about a new law, the “Energy Efficiency Act”, which was passed in 2023. He writes:
The crucial sentences can be found in Paragraph 4 : “The aim of this law is to reduce Germany’s final energy consumption by at least 26.5 percent by 2030 compared to 2008, to a final energy consumption of 1,867 terawatt hours.” For the period thereafter, it is planned to “reduce Germany’s final energy consumption by 45 percent by 2045 compared to 2008.”
Loewenstern goes into detail of how this law was pushed through almost unnoticed and as a result of a secret deal by the SDP and Greens, without the knowledge of their coalition partners the FDP.
His full essay is below:
Germany’s craziest energy law goes unnoticed
With lies and deception, hardcore green ideologists pushed through a law that is leading Germany into the abyss. Apparently neither the CDU/CSU nor the AfD discovered the time bomb. It is a kind of hunger law.
Imagine a country whose athletes are at the top of the international rankings. Let’s call it Lala Land. The Lala Association is responsible for sporting matters. The LLV has a department for nutritional science. The Lala ecologists play an important role in the association, because what you put into athletes at the front determines what comes out at the back. Ideally, medals.
A school of thought has become established among the Lala eco-freaks, whose followers call themselves anti-kalorists, or AntiKa for short. True to their motto “less is less”, AntiKa develops a training plan with a gradual reduction in food intake. The goal is to limit the calorie intake to half of the current one. To implement the plan, AntiKa draws on the teachings of two management gurus: Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli and Jean-Claude Juncker. Their core principles are “the end justifies the means” and ” when things get serious, you have to lie “.
For the presentation to the LLV board, AntiKa chose the title “Eat better, win better”. The concept was presented as “implementation of the guidelines of the world sports association”. The board approved the plan. It was distracted by the “fight against right-handers” in the LLV, which was identified as discriminatory and racist. The calorie limits for athletes remained in force even after a change in the board.
life light
Nice story, you might think, but far from reality. Even the biggest nutcases can’t think of such nonsense as the Lala hunger requirement. But they can. The German Greens have done even worse than the AntiKa in Lala Land. They pushed through a law that puts the whole of Germany on a permanent diet. In the future, we will only be allowed to use about half as much energy as before – for eating, heating, washing, playing, working, producing, building, transporting, traveling. For everything. Life light. Planned, tested, forced.
The legislative work of art bears the sleek name “Law to Increase Energy Efficiency in Germany”, or Energy Efficiency Act for short. Never heard of it? Haven’t seen a single ARD Brennpunkt, ZDF special, or Lanz consultation hour on the subject? Haven’t seen any loud protests from the opposition? Haven’t seen a lead story in Bild, Spiegel, FAZ, Zeit or Welt ? No wonder.
The EnEfG is so inconspicuous that hardly anyone seems to have taken the trouble to take a closer look. The few well-known voices that raised the alarm were not heard. Or deliberately ignored.
Before we turn to the wet dream of the reduction apostles, let us first recap how it came about. The decisive move was made by a small group of Greens in the course of the dispute over the shutdown of the last German nuclear power plants. ” Radical Green ideologues ” tricked, deceived and lied. Anyone familiar with the dirty details of the final nuclear phase-out may want to scroll straight to the subheading “Secret additional agreement”.
closed-ended examination
Phase one began on February 24, 2022, when Russian troops invaded Ukraine, and lasted less than two weeks. Economics Minister Robert Habeck, who had only recently taken office, suddenly found himself “surrounded by reality ,” which is apparently an experience that is both surprising and painful for the Greens. A discussion immediately began about the security of Germany’s energy supply, which was largely dependent on cheap Russian gas.
Habeck promised an “open-ended review” of the possible continued operation of the three remaining German nuclear power plants. On March 1, he added that there would be “no taboos” in the review. Another six days later, the open-ended review was concluded. On March 7, the traffic light cabinet decided to reject the continued operation of nuclear power plants beyond December 31, 2022.
Cicero magazine was not the only one to wonder how a “professional examination” could take place in “a few days and without consulting recognized experts.” The requested access to the files was denied for a long time. It was only after two years and a court ruling that the ministry released crucial documents. After evaluating them, Cicero concluded : “The expertise of the experts in the ministry, who were paid with taxpayers’ money, played hardly any role. […] When the specialist departments of both ministries were allowed to give their assessment, it was usually ignored – or deliberately falsified.”
The Energy Wendler
Officials in Habeck’s House had expressly pointed out the beneficial effects of an extension of operating times: “Electricity prices will fall, and grid operation will become more secure.” Without nuclear power plants, the costs of grid stabilization would even “rise sharply.” But at the management level, with EnergieWendler Patrick Graichen, the positive assessments miraculously disappeared.
The Ministry of the Environment, led by Steffi Lemke of the Greens, was even more creative. A department head called Niehaus worked there. His officials considered that continuing to operate the nuclear power plants that were still running “for several years” was “compatible with maintaining nuclear safety”. Niehaus, a Green, quickly turned the statement into the opposite. An extension of the operating time was “not justifiable from a safety point of view”.
The chairman of the committee of inquiry summed up the actions of the Green nuclear network : “It was a large-scale deception.” It is unclear how much the ministers Habeck and Lemke knew about the pro-nuclear verdict of their officials. There are two possibilities: either Habeck and Lemke lied to the public, or they had no idea what their trusted people were doing. Both options would be grounds for ministerial resignations. But resignation was a thing of the past; today, people don’t just “bear” responsibility, they “take it on” when necessary, and that’s it.
Habeck feared “Edeka”
Phase two of the final nuclear phase-out took place in late summer 2022. The supposed killer epidemic subsided, but real trouble loomed. Cheap Russian gas was no longer available, and electricity and heat prices reached record highs. Germans were threatened with a cold winter, with brownouts or even blackouts in the worst case scenario.
Even devout greenists felt uncomfortable at the thought of gathering around the needle-bearing eco-fir in the frosty living room with a tea light and felt gloves, relying solely on the power of body heat. Green functionaries were different. For them, dogma was more important than pragma. The nuclear phase-out had to be implemented at all costs.
Robert Habeck had a choice between the plague and cholera. Extend the term and provoke war with the party, or shut down nuclear power and risk freezing voters. In both cases, the worst of all evils could occur, namely “Edeka” – the popular abbreviation for “end of career” in middle management. Being relegated to a quiet supply post at the Flensburg municipal utilities may seem like a lottery jackpot to the average Joe, but not to someone who dreams of saving the world as King of Germany.
The directive competence was a fake
The Chancellor stepped in to help in this predicament. In October 2022, Olaf Scholz used his powers to issue directives to order the nuclear power plants to continue operating until mid-April 2023. Safety concerns suddenly no longer played a role – the nuclear power plants that were still running had apparently recovered spontaneously.
The exercise of the power to issue guidelines, which is anchored in the constitution, was a fake. After all, it is intended to bring a recalcitrant minister back into line by issuing instructions. That did not happen here, as documents available to Die Welt show: “According to this, the Chancellor did not exercise his power to issue guidelines against Habeck, but in consultation with him.” The three traffic light men Scholz, Habeck and Lindner agreed: the nuclear power plants should continue to operate, at least until spring 2023, and if the FDP wants it, much longer.
So Scholz’s alleged decisive word was not one. It helped the Minister of Economic Affairs out of a jam, who was able to claim to his party: It wasn’t me, it’s the Chancellor’s fault. However, the revelation was not really spectacular, because it only confirmed an obvious assumption. Die Welt had already asked Scholz in October 2022 : “Was the decisive word actually agreed upon?”
Secret Supplementary Agreement
Another revelation in the Welt publication was more interesting. Habeck and Scholz made a secret additional agreement when they came to an agreement without the FDP’s knowledge. Die Welt: “The documents clearly show how Scholz worked with Habeck on a solution and deliberately bypassed the front man of the Liberals in the coalition, Christian Lindner.” Graichen, a lobbyist who became a state secretary, gave his minister “negotiating chips” by email “in return for a possible extension of operations in Emsland.” The Greens had already agreed to the extension of two nuclear power plants, but were still reluctant to extend the third, Emsland.
It remains to be seen whether Olaf Scholz fell for a Green bluff. Perhaps Habeck simply declared: “I need something else to make it look as if we had negotiated hard.” In any case, the Chancellor delivered “largely what the Greens had ordered,” as Welt’s Robin Alexander writes. One day after Graichen’s email, Scholz issued the following directive: “Parallel to this decision, the following decisions will be made: An ambitious law to increase energy efficiency will be presented.”
This is where the commendable Welt research ends. What the Springer investigators did not notice is the significance of the Habeck-Scholz scheming. The Chancellor himself probably did not even know what a green camarilla had foisted on him. This is a reasonable assumption, because “Law to increase energy efficiency” sounds as innocent as the AOK’s electricity-saving tips : “Only fill the kettle with the amount of water you really need.”
The name itself is a lie
In truth, Scholz’s promise was the basis for the creation of a monster. The “ambitious law” saw the light of day a year later, in November 2023. The name “Energy Efficiency Act” is already a lie. At its core, it is not about increasing efficiency. Better efficiency could mean, for example, that more effect is achieved with the same consumption. The EnEfG does not allow that. It sets absolute limits. The total amount of energy used in Germany must decrease, year after year.
The crucial sentences can be found in Paragraph 4 : “The aim of this law is to reduce Germany’s final energy consumption by at least 26.5 percent by 2030 compared to 2008, to a final energy consumption of 1,867 terawatt hours.” For the period thereafter, it is planned to “reduce Germany’s final energy consumption by 45 percent by 2045 compared to 2008.”
Now, some may object that a limit might not be so dramatic, as we have already become much more economical in our energy consumption. Why shouldn’t this continue? This brings us to the next trick of the green magicians. The chosen reference value, the “comparison with the year 2008”, suggests that a considerable distance has already been covered in the past 16 years on the road to reduced energy consumption without any problems or complaints. This is not the case.
Federal Environment Agency cannot calculate
A publication by the Federal Environment Agency entitled “Central pillar of the energy transition – energy consumption and energy efficiency in Germany” provides some clarification . On page 4, the UBA claims: “Since 2008, the economy’s final energy productivity has increased by 55.9 percent.” Sounds good, but is wrong in several respects.
Firstly, the civil servants who are environmental specialists cannot do math. The “final energy productivity” is the ratio between the energy used in Germany and the gross domestic product generated with it. In 2008, this was 1,210 euros per megawatt hour, as the graphic next to the text shows. In 2023, the last year listed, it was 1,595 €/MWh. Even those who only know basic arithmetic can work out that the increase between the two values is not 55.9 percent, but only 31.8 percent.
Secondly, even the 31.8 percent increase in efficiency between 2008 and 2023 is still significantly exaggerated. As the UBA graph shows, annual energy consumption in Germany remained almost constant from the end of 2008 to the end of 2019. In 2008 it was 2,591 terawatt hours, in 2019 it was 2,514 TWh – a mini reduction in eleven years of a total of three percent, on average only 0.27 percent less energy consumption per year.
Not efficiency, but renunciation
At the same time, real GDP, i.e. adjusted for inflation, rose by an average of around one percent per year during this period. This increased energy productivity from €1,210/MWh to €1,431/MWh, an increase of 18.3 percent in eleven years. It was only from the beginning of 2020 to the end of 2023 that German final energy consumption fell by a whopping ten percent in just four years. However, this remarkable decline did not occur as a result of a sudden and miraculous increase in efficiency in energy use, as the UBA suggests.
In 2020, Corona appeared on the world stage.
Lockdowns and other restrictions reduced private and economic life. From 2022 onwards, the explosion in energy prices, general inflation and recession did the rest. Added to this was the structural crisis in German industry. From November 2017 to June 2024, production in the manufacturing sector fell by 15.3 index points.
The energy savings from 2020 onwards were not due to increased efficiency, as the UBA claims, but to sacrifice. Citizens and businesses consumed less because they were initially not allowed to do more and later could no longer. In summary: The 55.9 percent increase in efficiency in 15 years claimed by the UBA was, as already mentioned, incorrectly calculated. But even the corrected 31.8 percent is exaggerated on closer inspection. It is not based on increased efficiency, but on energy sacrifice due to multiple crises.
Only a third of the energy for everything
I don’t want to burden you with more numbers, but I will say this: Let’s assume that we achieve a meager increase in GDP by 2045, like between 2008 and 2019, of around one percent annually. Then we would have to more than double our energy efficiency compared to the pre-crisis year of 2019 in order to achieve the EnEfG consumption target for 2045. If the German economy grows by a reasonably healthy two percent a year by 2045, energy efficiency would have to almost triple.
In other words: in 2045, your heating would only need a third of the gas for the same heat output as in 2019.
Your diesel would no longer use 7 liters per 100 km, but only 2.6 liters. With the same amount of kerosene, your holiday plane could take you to Mallorca and back not once, but twice. Plus once to Venice and back. This is how it works in every area of life and economy: from the stove to the excavator, from the vacuum cleaner to the steel press, from the breakfast omelette to chicken farming – everything works with half or just a good third of the energy used so far.
The fun fact: The green Redux fetishists make no distinction between good and bad energy. Regardless of whether the electricity comes from a wind turbine or a coal-fired power plant, whether the heating runs on natural gas or green hydrogen – consumption must fall dramatically.
Government-imposed permanent crisis
Of course, further increases in energy efficiency are possible in many sectors and can be expected through technological progress. But a doubling or even tripling in all areas by 2045 is an absurd idea. Such an explosion in performance is sheer utopianism as long as Elon Musk doesn’t bring a magic potion from distant galaxies.
In purely practical terms, the requirements of the green clan and planned economy people therefore amount to a permanent crisis imposed by the government. What remains is renunciation. Every year a little less energy, every year a little more renunciation. The Energy Efficiency Act is in reality legislatively cemented degrowth, an industrial and macroeconomic contraction with all the consequences: loss of prosperity, mass unemployment, social disintegration. Germany is abolishing itself.
Well, it probably won’t come to that. No matter who is in power, someone will pull the ripcord at some point when we fall into the green paradise of abstinence. The only question is how much damage will be done before we reverse the trend. Germany is currently losing around 10,000 industrial jobs every month . They will not return, even if politicians come to their senses one day.
Green Paradise of Abstinence
Anyone who believes that the EnEfG is not yet having an effect is mistaken. Practical implementation has long since begun. As is usual in such cases, bureaucracy at its finest has been installed. Companies must meet reporting deadlines for waste heat, carry out energy audits, and set up a company energy management system – many by July 2025. Failure to comply can result in fines of up to 100,000 euros. Consulting firms are offering their help, and TÜV and IHK are holding online seminars on the subject.
The EnEfG is already contributing to economic migration. Business owners are reluctant to take a public political stance. They simply decide. Anyone who invests tens of millions in machines or entire factories does so with a view to a time frame of at least five to ten years. Reason and the reliability of the state framework play a decisive role in the choice of location. A state that passes crazy laws from a parallel universe can be trusted to do a lot, but not reason.
The Energy Efficiency Act surpasses everything the Greens have achieved so far in the area of climate policy. Compared to this, “ Habeck’s heating hammer ” is nothing. Despite this, the EnEfG is practically absent from public discourse. The opposition did not even take up the issue during the election campaign. Apparently neither the Union nor the AfD noticed the green time bomb.
“Extremist Climate Policy”
Even in major media, the law of horror was only acknowledged in exceptional cases. In December, two experts explained the “drastic consequences” of the “most blatant climate law” in a guest article on Focus Online . The experts did not mince their words. They said that they were coming very close to a “legally backed zero or degrowth policy and an energy shortage economy in Germany”. Germany had once again practiced “gold plating”, i.e. had gone far beyond EU guidelines. The EnEfG was evidence of “political encroachment, presumption of knowledge and fantasies of omnipotence”.
At Achgut.com, Fritz Vahrenholt recently pointed out the “monster law of planned economy” that will “destroy Germany as we know it”. Another renowned expert has been sounding the alarm for some time. The economist Hans-Werner Sinn thundered in a lecture last year ( no longer available online ): “Final energy consumption is to fall by 45 percent between 2008 and 2045, and not just dirty final energy consumption, but all final energy consumption. […] You have to ask yourself what that is all about. It is downright idiotic. It is a program of deindustrialization. […] It is hard to believe, but that is the legal situation in Germany.”
The former head of the Ifo Institute was even more harsh in his assessment of the green-dominated activities as a whole: “An extremist climate policy has taken hold of this country and is being implemented. It is a centrist extremism that can be observed here. The country has somehow lost its mind in setting these values.”
Graichen’s work and Habeck’s contribution
You can also put it differently: With their extremism on climate and energy issues, the Greens have finally left the political center. Of course, politicians like Robert Habeck, who react to the challenges of reality with the full force of their chatter, appear relatively harmless in their naivety. That is why it is wrong to call the Minister of Economic Affairs a ” professional idiot .” With the best will in the world, Habeck cannot be accused of professionalism.
There are hardcore ideologists in the background who pour madness into paragraphs. Loyal people like Habeck only serve as a friendly facade for the puppet masters. The really dangerous ones are the Graichen and Niehaus and their extensive network. In the service of the “good cause” they have no scruples. Anyone who sits down at a table with the world saviors must know what they are letting themselves in for. The Greens are playing with marked cards.
We can wait with excitement to see when the political competition wakes up and what happens next with the Energy Efficiency Act and other climate nonsense. To compensate, I will tell you the end of the story from Lala Land:
Some time after the introduction of the hunger program, top-level Lala sport has slipped to district league level. To investigate the inexplicable phenomenon, the LLV board decides to set up a commission of experts. The experts are to be selected according to purely scientific criteria. A neutral, trustworthy institution is entrusted with this task. It is called AntiKa.
Robert von Loewenstern is a lawyer and entrepreneur. From 1991 to 1993 he was a TV correspondent in Washington, first for ProSieben, later for n-tv. He lives in Bonn and Berlin.
Although, it clearly is plant food. And we know that substantially less CO2 would be very bad for plants. There is compelling evidence that CO2 in the range of 180-220 ppm induced carbon starvation in C3 plants during the Last Glacial Maximum (Ward et al., 2005). While there might be a point at which more atmospheric CO2 could do more harm than good, the rise from 280 to 420 ppm has clearly been beneficial. It’s largely been beneficial due to the exploitation of fossil fuels over the past 160 years.
Recent interviews with Trump administration officials have revived a persistent myth in climate change discussions: “CO2 is plant food”. This is one of those zombie climate-denial arguments that just never goes away because 1) it’s a simple argument and 2) it seems intuitive — after all, plants need carbon dioxide, so more of it must be good, right?
Yes, CO2 enhances photosynthesis. But crops don’t grow in a vacuum, they also need water, temperatures in a particular range, and farmers need predictable seasons. Climate change disrupts all of those.
Oh! But that’s just wheat and corn! That’s true. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of agricultural products. FAOSTAT also publishes an agricultural Gross Production Index relative to 2014-2016.
I don’t know of any scientifically literate skeptics who say that more CO2 is better simply because it’s plant food. Nor do I know of any who think that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the sole reason for improved agricultural output over the past 64 years.
Although, it clearly is plant food. And we know that substantially less CO2 would be very bad for plants. There is compelling evidence that CO2 in the range of 180-220 ppm induced carbon starvation in C3 plants during the Last Glacial Maximum (Ward et al., 2005). While there might be a point at which more atmospheric CO2 could do more harm than good, the rise from 280 to 420 ppm has clearly been beneficial. It’s largely been beneficial due to the exploitation of fossil fuels over the past 160 years.
From 1800 to 1900, per capita energy consumption, primarily from biomass, remained relatively flat; as did the average life expectancy. From 1900 to 1978, per capita energy consumption roughly tripled with the rapid growth in fossil fuel production (coal, oil & gas). This was accompanied by a doubling of average life expectancy. While I can’t say that fossil fuels caused the increase in life expectancy, I can unequivocally state that everything that enabled the increase in life expectancy wouldn’t have existed or happened without fossil fuels, particularly petroleum.
Our modern society would not exist without fossil fuels and it would collapse in a heartbeat if fossil fuels were made unavailable and/or unaffordable. One of the coolest things about being a petroleum geologist, is that I can give thanks for fossil fuels and say “you’re welcome” in the same sentence.
The Permanent University Fund (PUF) is a public endowment contributing to the support of eligible institutions of The University of Texas and The Texas A&M University Systems. The PUF was established in the Texas Constitution of 1876 through the appropriation of land grants previously given to The University of Texas, as well as an additional one million acres of land. Additional land grants to the PUF were completed in 1883 with the contribution of another one million acres. Today, the PUF contains over 2.1 million acres of land primarily located in 19 counties in West Texas.
The PUF’s primary investment objective is to maximize investment returns within the risk parameters specified in the PUF Investment Policy Statement without regard to the distribution rate.
The PUF is invested in a broad mix of investments and is actively managed to its policy portfolio or benchmark. UTIMCO allocates the PUF’s assets to internally and externally managed portfolios in accordance with guidelines approved in the PUF Investment Policy Statement.
Mineral Interest Contribution = Revenue from oil & gas production
References
Lomborg, Bjorn . Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. Volume 156, 2020, 119981, ISSN 0040-1625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119981.
MacFarling Meure, C., D. Etheridge, C. Trudinger, P. Steele, R. Langenfelds, T. van Ommen, A. Smith, and J. Elkins (2006), Law Dome CO2, CH4 and N2O ice core records extended to 2000 years BP, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14810, doi:10.1029/2006GL026152.
Ward, Joy K.; Harris, John M.; Cerling, Thure E.; Wiedenhoeft, Alex; Lott, Michael J.; Dearing, Maria-Denise; Coltrain, Joan B.; Ehleringer, James R. 2005. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 102, no. 3 (Jan. 18, 2005): p. 690-694
You must be logged in to post a comment.