Day: March 16, 2025

Reality check: Towns and states don’t want inefficient Green energy

Trump Administration actions to scale back renewable energy capture headlines, but citizens are also pushing back against inefficient inefficiency. Efforts to deploy wind and solar systems face a rising tide of opposition in towns, counties, and states. Mandates for electric vehicles and electric home appliances are being challenged. The combination of rising local opposition and Trump funding cuts threatens to end the transition to green energy.

From CFACT

By Steve Goreham

Trump Administration actions to scale back renewable energy capture headlines, but citizens are also pushing back against inefficient inefficiency. Efforts to deploy wind and solar systems face a rising tide of opposition in towns, counties, and states. Mandates for electric vehicles and electric home appliances are being challenged. The combination of rising local opposition and Trump funding cuts threatens to end the transition to green energy.

The green energy revolution in the United States has run almost unopposed for the last two decades. Driven by the fear of human-caused global warming, federal regulators enacted an expanding array of incentives for renewables in the form of mandates, tax credits, loans, and subsidies. States added incentives to push for the adoption of wind, solar, electric vehicles, heat pumps, green hydrogen, and carbon dioxide (CO2) capture systems.

Twenty-three states have laws or executive orders requiring Net Zero electricity by 2050. Power companies have been forced to comply with state mandates. Since 2000, wind and solar have grown from near zero to about 16% of US power generation in 2024, wind (10.5%) and solar (5.1%).

Twenty-two states have electric vehicle (EV) mandates, requiring all sales of new cars to be EVs by a future date, such as 2035. Tightening CO2 emission standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) force manufacturers to sell an increasing share of EVs. Plug-in EV sales grew from zero two decades ago to 8% last year.

Climate policy advocates want homeowners to switch from natural gas and propane appliances to heat pumps and other electric appliances. In 2019, Berkeley, California became the first city to prohibit natural gas in new residential construction. Cities and counties in seven states now ban gas in new construction, including a statewide ban in New York.

The wave of renewable energy programs promoted and subsidized included electric vehicle charging stations, CO2 pipelines, and green hydrogen production facilities. But it’s becoming clear that many towns, counties, and states no longer support the green energy movement. A rising tide of opposition threatens the deployment of renewables.

Last month, the State House of Arizona passed legislation that would prohibit construction of wind systems on more than 90% of state land. The legislation would force new wind projects to be at least 12 miles from any residential property. The bill is being considered in the Arizona Senate.

Oklahoma is the third largest generator of electricity from wind in the US. But attendees at recent rallies at the state capitol call for bans on new wind and solar projects. Local residents voice economic, environmental, and health concerns about renewable systems.

The opposition to wind and solar has been growing for more than a decade and recently accelerating. In 2009, North Carolina banned new wind projects in 23 counties. Kentucky enacted an effective statewide ban on new wind construction in 2014. Connecticut, Florida, Tennessee, and Vermont have established bans which are effectively statewide.

A 2023 study by USA Today found that the number of counties in the US with wind turbine restrictions or bans rose from two in 2008 to 411 in 2023. The number of blocking counties rose to over 500 in 2024 with Florida’s ban on wind systems offshore and within one mile of the coast. About 16% of US counties now ban or restrict wind systems. More than 100 counties restrict the deployment of solar systems. The number of counties that ban wind or solar is rising faster than counties which are deploying wind or solar for the first time.

Journalist Robert Bryce has developed a Renewable Rejection Database. The database shows a cumulative total of 800 of wind and solar project rejections in the US since 2015. It shows a rising trend in rejections, including an especially large jump in solar rejections in 2022, 2023, and 2024.

There are many reasons for rising opposition to wind and solar projects. Towns are concerned with the aesthetic impact of 600-foot-high turbine towers and acres of solar panels, the loss of farmland to sprawling wind and solar systems, low-frequency noise from wind turbines, and the impact on nearby property values. Retiring systems generate vast quantities of turbine blade and solar panel waste that fill up local landfills or must be shipped to landfills in other states.

Wind and solar require more than 100 times the land compared to coal, gas, or nuclear power generators for the same average electricity output. While traditional power plants are usually located near cities, utility-scale wind and solar systems are spread over wide areas, often on ridge lines and located far from population centers. Therefore, renewables require long transmission lines and two or three times the transmission towers compared to conventional power plants. Residents often oppose the construction of new transmission as well.

Some states have decided to overrule local opposition to wind and solar. A 2023 Illinois state law overruled restrictions or bans on wind and solar established by more than half of state counties. A 2023 Michigan state law also overruled local opposition from more than 20 counties. Local opposition can be bypassed in seven other states.

In 2024, electric vehicle sales grew only 7% in the US. California and ten other states currently mandate that 35% of new car sales must be EVs in the 2026 model year. With slowing consumer adoption of EVs, these goals are impossible for all states except California. At the end of 2024, Virginia cancelled their EV mandate. Look for other states to cancel as well.

As we mentioned, cities and counties in seven states have banned gas appliances in new construction, but in the last five years, 24 states enacted regulations prohibiting city and county bans on gas appliances. Most states want citizens and businesses to be able to choose the home energy that they prefer.

Utilities are rethinking plans for renewable electricity. The artificial intelligence revolution may require Texas, Virginia, and other states to double power generating capacity within the next decade. Wind and solar systems can’t meet this demand. Nuclear plants are being restarted, coal plant closings are being postponed, and more than 200 gas-fired power plants are in planning or under construction.

Carbon dioxide capture and green hydrogen projects are also being challenged. South Dakota just signed a law prohibiting the use of eminent domain to seize land for CO2 pipelines. CO2 capture projects in Louisiana face severe local opposition. And regional green hydrogen hubs are sure to be opposed.

With Trump funding cuts and escalating local opposition to renewables, 2025 may be the beginning of the end of the green energy transition in the United States.

This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy

Worst climate science doom-scandal ever?

Dr Peter Ridd has been exposing the Great Barrier Reef scam for years, losing his job in the process.

Great Barrier Reef

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Dr Peter Ridd has been exposing the Great Barrier Reef scam for years, losing his job in the process.

He has repeatedly attacked claims by govt funded scientists that the reef is rapidly dying and shown that it is actually flourishing instead.

In this video he goes into the detail of how scientists abused the data to “prove” a sudden decline in coral growth after 1990:

To recap, this is the basis for the alarmist claims:

Yes, it’s yet another hockey stick!

And just as the original one, it is constructed by splicing two sets of data.

As Peter Ridd explains, monitoring of the reef ended around 1990. When measurements of coral growth began again after 2005, they used a lot of cores from young coral, which were easier to drill.

Younger coral has different growth rates to the older ones previously used. When these younger ones are taken out of the calculation, the downturn magically disappears, and growth returns to pre-1990 levels.

US Multinationals Purging Online Climate Action Pages

More evidence of the ongoing collapse of the climate movement.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

More evidence of the ongoing collapse of the climate movement.

US multinationals purge website references to climate change

Walmart and Kraft Heinz among big corporations deleting or rewriting statements as Trump climate attacks intensify

Attracta Mooney and Susannah Savage in London

Big companies and non-profit groups have begun purging or rewriting references to climate change on their websites, mirroring similar action by US government departments in response to the policies of Donald Trump.

Financial Times analysis shows that statements on climate change from leading corporations including Walmart and Kraft Heinz have been deleted or rewritten over the past year at the same time as a Republican backlash against green action has intensified and companies have begun rolling back their net zero targets.

…

Areeba Hamid, co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned companies were at risk of “committing brand self-sabotage by erasing and diluting references to climate on their websites”. 

…

Charities also told the FT they were rejigging their websites, with one US non-profit group that operates internationally saying they had scrubbed whole pages about climate change online, partly in a bid to help shore up US grants. 

…Read more: 

https://www.ft.com/content/f100bedb-16cb-4f5e-8f64-9a10d5c43a51

The full article is worth reading, it contains a substantial list of companies and charities which have turned their backs on climate action.

Interestingly some of them apparently started purging online climate content before the November election, possibly in anticipation of a Trump victory.

Obviously if a radical climate activist is elected to the White House all the statements of climate commitment will be dusted off and restored. But in my opinion, this shows how little corporations and charities genuinely care about climate change, and the fundamental weakness of the climate movement.

So geniuses, if a lack of coal makes prices rise, what’s going to happen when we shut down more coal?

As the Opposition point out the Labor government went to the last election telling us 97 times how they would make our electricity $275 cheaper, but with the latest rise, it’ll cost more like $1,300 more than it did before the Labor party were elected. Prices look set to rise about two or three times faster than inflation. But coming after big blockbuster rises two years in a row, even a 5 or 10% rise is nasty.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

With exquisite timing, another price rise in Australian electricity arrived just in time for the next election

As the Opposition point out the Labor government went to the last election telling us 97 times how they would make our electricity $275 cheaper, but with the latest rise, it’ll cost more like $1,300 more than it did before the Labor party were elected. Prices look set to rise about two or three times faster than inflation. But coming after big blockbuster rises two years in a row, even a 5 or 10% rise is nasty.

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER). Being part of The Blob, diplomatically and uselessly blame nearly every part of the system, as though this is just bad luck, even though they must know exactly which single dominant factor has changed in the last 30 years.

Average wholesale market spot prices increased across 2024, impacted by factors such as high demand, coal generator and network outages, and low solar and wind output that drove high price events across DMO regions. These high price events have also affected the price of wholesale electricity contracts for 2025–26. 

Meanwhile Minister Chris Bowen, Mr Blackout himself, blames coal and the Russians:

Energy Minister Chris Bowen defended the government’s energy policy, insisting that the unreliability of coal was responsible for the rise.

“Not a day in the last two years have we had a coal-fired power station does not break down somewhere in Australia,” he said. “Not talking about planned maintenance, I’m talking about unexpected breakdowns which then see energy prices spike. The government wants to replace that power with “more reliable, cleaner, cheaper renewable energy”, he said.

“What we have seen is substantial world movements in energy prices as a direct result of the long tail of Covid and supply-chain ­issues, but also of the Russian ­invasion of Ukraine,” the Prime Minister said on Thursday.

As for the failures of coal plants, it’s like being gas-lit. If electricity costs more when we have less coal, what happens when we have no coal?

No one is buying the pandemic-war-excuse anymore. The price of oil is the same as what it was before Covid and the Ukrainian war, so is the price of coal, and LNG. In any case, Australia is one the top three exporters of coal and gas in the world, and so if we’re short, it’s because we screwed up.

The real problem with the “old” coal plants is that we are running them full tilt, treating them like dirt and giving them away to corporations for $1 (Vale Liddell!) Many of the companies that own coal plants also own a suite of competing generators and happen to benefit when some coal breaks down because they earn more off the  price spikes. In a fake free market, AGL paid $1 for Liddell, but wouldn’t sell it for $250 million a few years later because it was worth more dead than it was as a functioning plant.

The auction rules for the Australian electricity market means that the highest winning bid that was needed by the market operator is paid to every single player who successful bid (even though they may have offered a lower price). So, removing a low bidder shifts the winning bid “up” a layer to the next highest bidder in the stack. Effectively, nearly every big player benefits when one low-cost asset is disabled or removed.

The top accepted bid sets the price for all the players.

If we had of used rune stones and chicken entrails to design our national energy policy it wouldn’t be this embarrassing.

Will any journalist pin that Minister down with some basic questions? Does he realize coal plants can be maintained for 50 to 70 years?  If we delay “Net Zero” targets by ten years, or even a hundred, would any Australian notice? How many degrees of cooling will we achieve and at what cost? What are the interest payments costing us on our global weather control…  (Readers can suggest more questions below. What should an Energy Minister know?)

The leader of the opposition has called for the Energy Minister to be sacked. The mystery is why he was put there in the first place.

Share the “Deep Internal Conflict” of the Green Aussie Billionaire Who Just Bought a Private Jet

Now that a leading green has set the acceptable family man carbon allowance at the level of CO2 emitted by flying multiple times per week in a private jet and sponsoring a Formula 1 racing team, I think most of us with a little personal sacrifice could match that level of climate activism.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… so I can run a global business from Australia, and still be a constantly present dad …”

Billionaire climate campaigner Mike Cannon-Brookes defends buying private jet and sponsoring F1 team

Atlassian co-founder says he has ‘extremely rigorous carbon regime’ but makes ‘hard tradeoff’ to run global business and be ‘a constantly present dad’

Graham Readfearn
Fri 14 Mar 2025 15.06 AEDT

The Australian billionaire and outspoken climate advocate Mike Cannon-Brookes has defended buying a private jet and his company’s new sponsorship of the Williams Formula One racing team.

…

Cannon-Brookes sought to explain the reasons why he bought the jet and Atlassian’s F1 sponsorship in an almost-500 word post to LinkedIn, hours after the Australian Financial Review had written about the billionaire’s new jet.

Estimated to be worth US$13bn by Forbes, Cannon-Brookes said he bought a private jet “so I can run a global business from Australia, and still be a constantly present dad” which was a “hard, continual tradeoff I’ve decided to make”.

On the sponsorship of the Williams F1 team, Cannon-Brookes said he appreciated “the double take” on the deal because “cars=fuel”.

…

“It probably comes as no surprise, I have an extremely rigorous carbon regime for all my flying – including using direct air capture and sustainable fuels for the carbon and contrails, to far exceed my flight footprint,” he wrote.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/14/mike-cannon-brookes-f1-williams-sponsorship-atlassian-private-jet

It’s OK Mike, we at WUWT understand, believe me we do.

Of course, this has implications for the rest of us family guys – we love our kids every bit as much as Mike loves his.

Now that a leading green has set the acceptable family man carbon allowance at the level of CO2 emitted by flying multiple times per week in a private jet and sponsoring a Formula 1 racing team, I think most of us with a little personal sacrifice could match that level of climate activism.

I only have one question.

Mike, back in 2019 your company Atlassian offered paid leave to employees who participate in climate protests. Does this offer still apply to employees who attend a green blockade of your private jet? Or do they have to make sure they blockade someone elses private jet?

Big Tech Offers Paid Leave to Climate Protest “Volunteers”

It’s Always Grüner on the Other Side..

You’ve probably heard about the revolution carried out by the new German Chancellor Merz, overturning the 80-year postwar German tradition of fiscal caution by changing the constitution, thus allowing Germany to borrow 500 billion euros to spend on infrastructure and a similarly unimaginable sum on defense.    

As part of the deal, Merz promised the Greens that 100 billion of the €500 billion infrastructure budgets would be spent on climate matters.

Climate Scepticism

By Geoff Chambers

You’ve probably heard about the revolution carried out by the new German Chancellor Merz, overturning the 80-year postwar German tradition of fiscal caution by changing the constitution, thus allowing Germany to borrow 500 billion euros to spend on infrastructure and a similarly unimaginable sum on defense.    

As part of the deal, Merz promised the Greens that 100 billion of the €500 billion infrastructure budgets would be spent on climate matters. 

The excellent Eugyppius described the insanity of this on his blog a couple days before the Greens accepted the Hundred billion sweetener:

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/on-the-manifold-fractal-screwups

To bring the Greens around, Merz decided to present himself as an avocado – black on the outside, and green on the inside… He told the press: “… much of what we’re proposing – if not almost everything – has already been proposed by the Greens in the last legislative period.” It is like Merz forgot that German voters have televisions. “Support my plan, dear Greens!” he told the press. “It contains everything you want, and everything my constituents oppose!’” … explaining that he would be happy to use the word ‘climate’ more frequently in his justifications for the debt break overhaul if that would get them on board. Amazingly – and you will not believe this – the Greens did not agree… and then they presented their own separate plan to overhaul the debt brake – a more financially conservative proposal than the one Merz and the SPD had hammered out among themselves. Merz now finds himself publicly humiliated and without his trousers, standing on undefended territory to the left of the fucking Green Party … 

[Eugyppius describes himself on X as “a sharp-tongued ex-American prof now living in Germany, dishing out fiery takes on everything from dodgy Covid jabs to migrant mayhem, all while championing free speech and scoffing at climatist nonsense.”]

But wait. Why is Chancellor Merz promising anything to the Greens? They’re not part of his ruling coalition. 

The answer is that Merz is not Chancellor yet. To get his spending programme (which is the precise opposite of everything his party has always stood for) passed, he needs to change the constitution, which requires a two thirds majority, which Merz’s coalition with the Social Democrats won’t have in the parliament that takes over in a few weeks’ time.

But in the present parliament, Merz’s conservatives, plus the governing Social Democrat/Green coalition do have the required two thirds of the votes. So Merz is pushing through the constitutional change in the old parliament, with the votes of MPs who’ve just lost the election, including many Greens.

Imagine if Britain had a similar system, where the old parliament continues to function for months after a new one has been elected. Starmer, on winning the election, could have said to Sunak: “I’ve got all these insane austerity measures I want to pass, that are opposed by the vast majority of my party. Could you push them through for me, then I’ll take over, and be so hated that I guarantee that, come the next election, you’ll be in power for a generation.”  

Meanwhile, the Greens, thrown out of power by the electors, have been awarded a hundred billion euro consolation prize.

You could set up a fair number of NGOs with a hundred billion.

The People vs. Gavin Newsom’s Mandate

As promised, President Donald Trump on Day One of his second term issued an executive order. Unleashing American Energy, that declared as U.S. policy an intention “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.”

From Watts Up With That?

By Duggan Flanakin

As promised, President Donald Trump on Day One of his second term issued an executive order. Unleashing American Energy, that declared as U.S. policy an intention “to eliminate the ‘electric vehicle (EV) mandate’ and promote true consumer choice.”

But shortly after the Trump EPA sent its waiver cancellation request to Congress for review, the Government Accountability Office announced that Congress has not authority to review the Biden waiver or to revoke it. The GAO has thus created a difficult dilemma for the Trump Administration and for the millions of Americans who find the mandate unconscionable.

While the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, which created the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards, expressly preempts states from establishing their own fuel economy standards, Congress had given California the authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards in a 1967 clean air law, with one caveat: California standards require a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Under the Clean Air Act, though, the EPA can legally reject a California waiver only if it is “arbitrary or capricious” and thus unnecessary or technologically infeasible. Historically, not a single California waiver has ever been revoked, and CARB claims there is no process within the Clean Air Act to reject a waiver. Moreover, when President Trump in 2019 sought to end its authority to set its own emissions and mileage rules, California and 22 other states sued.

In one of his last official acts, President Joe Biden last December granted California a new waiver that authorizes its mandate to require 35% of new 2026 model cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles. Those numbers jump to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. When Biden in 2022 approved a waiver for earlier California emissions rules, auto manufacturers and 14 states went to court.

The battle over zero-emission vehicle mandates is not restricted to California, because other states can follow California regulations once the state receives a waiver from the EPA. To date, 18 states have followed at least parts of the new California mandate, and the Golden State has put pressure on auto manufacturers to both follow and defend its unpopular regulations.

There are just two problems with the increasingly unpopular EV mandate. First, it appears that the only way for California to meet its 2026 milestone is to revise its downward. The California New Car Dealers Association reports that zero emission vehicles’ market share fell to 21.3% in the fourth quarter of 2024, down from 23.7% in the prior quarter for an annual average of 22% (barely above the 21.7% in 2023).

Second, nationwide polls show that 75% of Americans oppose any kind of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle ban. Public support in California for its mandate peaked at 55% in 2022 (with 39% opposed) but has been slipping in the wake of a 20% increase in electricity rates that have resulted in much higher costs for recharging EV batteries. EV sales in California fell from 447,000 in 2023 to just 387,000 in 2024.

But as long as the mandate stands, it will punish both auto manufacturers and auto buyers for not bowing to Governor Newsom’s whims. Automakers face penalties of $20,000 per noncompliant vehicle sold, with the only alternatives buying emission credits for EV-only manufacturers or limiting their inventories of gasoline and diesel vehicles.

This will force Californians to either buy an EV or just hold onto older vehicles longer – limiting their choices significantly. Similar penalties and limitations on consumer choice are looming in many other cities and states. One can only imagine the anger and frustration. (Meanwhile, formerly popular Teslas are now being blown to bits by radical supporters of EV mandates.)

The Institute for Energy Research’s Kenny Stein says that the sheer size of the California market (and that of the states that conform to California standards) means that automakers must either make their entire fleet California-compliant or sell different car lines in different states – a near economic impossibility. This forces citizens of other states to purchase more expensive vehicles and thereby subsidize California’s regulatory choices against their will.

But, adds Stein, ending the mandate requires revising or rejecting three major regulatory actions: EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards, the CAFÉ standards, and California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations for which the Biden EPA granted a waiver (that the GAO says Congress cannot overturn). Unlike President Obama, it appears, President Trump cannot eliminate this unpopular mandate “with a pen and a phone.”

Europeans, who started the ZEV crusade, have also been unable to meet their own mandate milestones. The EU, like California, has banned non-EV sales as of 2035 (with possible exceptions for hydrogen-powered vehicles). One result is that European automakers are terrified that cheap Chinese EVs will drive them into bankruptcy.

As with California, 23 of the 27 EU nations, including Germany, Italy, and France, missed their national climate targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation. This means they may face heavy financial penalties if they are unwilling or unable to purchase increasingly expensive carbon credits. But like Governor Newsom, the Europeans have not let the facts – or the cost – interfere with their zeal to be first to reach zero.

On top of the public outcry against mandates, California and the nation face the very real threat that Zombie-like adherence to the EV mandate will collapse the electric grid – rendering the EV totally undriveable. Add to that longer repair times, the high cost of replacement batteries, the growing fear of EV fires, and a host of other concerns.

Only time will tell whether pro-EV lawfare will prevent California – and much of the nation – from continuing its lemming-like march toward the cliff. The 25% are hell bent on forcing the 75% to jump with them, while the 75% only want to be free to make their own choices.

Meanwhile, the Gavinator’s own presumed desire to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2029 has hit a bump in the road, as he is learning any step toward the center will unleash the vehement anger of the Democratic base.

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

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

Met Office Peddle Ridiculous NAO Scare Story

No Met Office scare story would be complete without the mandatory demand for us to give up fossil fuels:

“However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Cunningham

It’s Jackanory time at the Met Office:

A groundbreaking study reveals that the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) could reach unprecedented magnitudes by the end of the century, leading to severe impacts such as increased flooding and storm damage in northern Europe.

The NAO is a large-scale atmospheric pressure see-saw in the North Atlantic and is a key driver of winter weather patterns in the UK, western Europe and eastern USA. It is measured by the gradient between high pressure over the Azores and low pressure over Iceland and controls the strength of the prevailing winds.

The study, led by a team of Met Office climate scientists, identifies climatological water vapour as a significant factor governing differences in long-term fluctuations in the NAO across climate model simulations. The research shows that limitations in the way that current climate models represent water vapour in the atmosphere lead to uncertainty in predictions of the NAO’s future behaviour. Taking account of these limitations reveals a substantial response of the NAO to volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.

The findings indicate that under a scenario with very high concentrations of greenhouse gases by the end of the century, the NAO will increase to levels never before seen, posing severe risks of impacts from extreme weather such as flooding and storm damage. However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Lead author, Dr Doug Smith, emphasized the urgency of the findings: “These findings have major implications for understanding and preparing for extreme weather events. Our study suggests that taking model projections at face value could leave society unprepared for impending extremes. Mitigation efforts are crucial to prevent the severe impacts associated with an unprecedented increase in the NAO.”

Key findings from the study include:

  • The study shows that some of the differences between model projections of the NAO  is due to climatological water vapour limitations in the models.
  • The research reveals the NAO’s significant response to external forcings such as volcanic eruptions and greenhouse gases.
  • The study also takes into account the ‘Signal to Noise Paradox’, which suggests that climate models may underestimate the magnitude of the real-world NAO changes.
  • The research results underscore the importance of mitigation efforts to avoid severe impacts from an unprecedented increase in the NAO.
  • The study highlights the need for improved climate models to better predict future changes in the regional climate.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/significant-climate-change-impacts-paper-nao

No Met Office scare story would be complete without the mandatory demand for us to give up fossil fuels:

“However, these impacts could be mitigated through efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

You might also note the silly scare is based on very high concentrations of greenhouse gases. In other words, RCP 8.5 that is universally regarded as impossible.

But back in the real world, the NAO has not become more extreme, “despite” global warming.

https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CRUData/nao&STATION=NAO-Gibraltar&TYPE=i&id=someone@somewhere

The NAO has the strongest effect on weather in winter, but again we find none of the extremes claimed by the Met Office, which would surely have become apparent now after 200 years of warming.

https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inao.dat

This latest piece of nonsense is another example of how the Met Office have lost their reputation for scientific excellence, dumped to pursue a political agenda.

It is time they faced the same sort of cuts that Trump is wisely imposing on NOAA.

Miliband travels to China to discuss clean energy – but won’t mention their coal

Energy Secretary to hold three days of meetings in Beijing which has seen resurgence of fossil fuel power plants

Energy Secretary to hold three days of meetings in Beijing which has seen resurgence of fossil fuel power plants

Ed Miliband will travel to China on Friday for talks about the shift to green energy – but won’t mention Beijing’s coal. The Telegraph has the story.

The Energy Secretary will hold three days of meetings with Chinese officials to discuss climate change and the transition to net zero.

But The Telegraph understands that he will not directly address the reluctance of the world’s biggest polluter to commit to a hard deadline to phase out coal.

Beijing has seen a resurgence in the construction of new coal-fired power plants, reaching record levels last year.

Meanwhile, the UK closed its last coal power plant in September 2024, followed swiftly by a ban on new coal mines by Mr Miliband as a “signal to the world” of the Government’s green ambitions.

Mr Miliband will be the third Cabinet minister after Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, and David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, to visit Beijing amid efforts by Labour ministers to establish better relations with the world’s second-biggest economy.

The energy secretary will meet with vice premier Ding Xuexiang, China’s climate envoy, to discuss cooperation in the lead up to this year’s Cop30 climate summit in Brazil, The Telegraph understands.

The full story here.

From Paris to Permian, Trump Restoring Rational Energy Policy

For too long, the conversation around energy policy in the United States has been dominated by a toxic brew of partisan rancor, media sensationalism, and international grandstanding. The far-left media are now driving a narrative that President Trump’s positions are an assault on reason itself. But the opposite is the truth.

From Watts Up With That?

By Vijay Jayaraj

For too long, the conversation around energy policy in the United States has been dominated by a toxic brew of partisan rancor, media sensationalism, and international grandstanding. The far-left media are now driving a narrative that President Trump’s positions are an assault on reason itself. But the opposite is the truth.

What we’re witnessing isn’t a denial of science or a retreat from reality. It’s a bold, pragmatic recalibration – one rooted in economic foresight, scientific clarity, and a refusal to let America’s industrial supremacy be eroded by bureaucratic bloat and globalist agendas.

Back to Energy Dominance

Energy costs ripple through every corner of the economy. When electricity prices spike or fuel becomes scarce, manufacturers scale back, small businesses shutter, and families get pinched. For decades, the U.S. has enjoyed an enviable position as an energy superpower, thanks to fossil fuels and other natural resources, technological ingenuity, and relatively free markets.

Yet in recent years, that advantage has been jeopardized by a tangle of climate regulations, green subsidies, and international climate commitments that often prioritize political optics over practical outcomes.

Take the Paris Agreement, for example, from which Trump intends to withdraw a second time after Biden reversed a withdrawal during Trump’s first term. The agreement is billed as a scientific pact, but it’s a political one – riddled with loopholes for China and India, the world’s biggest CO2 emitters, while saddling the U.S. with disproportionate costs. The United Nations, which oversees it, has a long history of blending science with ideology. Its climate summits are as much about posturing as progress, with jet-setting delegates of powerful countries demanding sacrifices they won’t make themselves.

The Biden years featured a concerted push for “green” technologies – wind, solar, battery storage – coupled with a chokehold on oil and gas development. Agencies like the Department of Energy funneled billions into projects destined for failure, repeating on a larger scale the Solyndra debacle of the Obama administration. Meanwhile, the agency dragged its feet on permits for pipelines and terminals for liquefied natural gas exports.

Trump’s policy shift – emphasizing fossil fuel production, streamlining permitting, and pulling back from the dogmatic green agenda – offers a chance to pursue what works. This is a demonstration of rationality and a rejection of corruption and groupthink that has masqueraded as scientific consensus.

By unleashing domestic oil and gas production in places like the Permian Basin, Alaska, and offshore, Trump is betting on oil deposits that can supply the country for decades and natural gas reserves that can power the world. This isn’t nostalgia for a bygone era but a recognition that fossil fuels remain the most reliable, scalable, and cost-effective energy sources available today.

Far-Left Embraces Pseudoscience

The left accuses Trump of ignoring settled science. But what’s settled? Certainly not the doomsday script that demands abandonment of proven technologies in exchange for so-called renewable fads that make platform shoes look practical.

For years, the climate debate has been less about data and more about dogma. Almost all future forecasts on climate by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are based upon scientifically inaccurate assumptions about the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases.

Even if the U.N.’s moderate emissions scenarios come to pass, global temperatures are predicted to rise only 2-3 degrees Celsius by 2100 – hardly an apocalyptic outcome and very likely a beneficial one.

Trump’s pledge to slash red tape is a war on waste. He’s betting that American industry, unshackled, can deliver cleaner, cheaper energy faster than any government mandate ever could.

Until recently dictated by fear, guilt, and globalist platitudes, energy policy is now on track to reflect reality and respond to the economic imperative for affordable power and the strategic need to stay ahead of the curve in a competitive and dangerous world.

This commentary was first published at BizPac Review on March 12, 2025.

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.