Day: July 6, 2025

Inter-American Court Rules Nations Must Reduce Emissions and Censor Skeptics

An international body which thinks it can dictate climate policy and free speech policy to the United States.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

An international body which thinks it can dictate climate policy and free speech policy to the United States.

Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules

Costa Rica-based inter-American court of human rights says states have obligation to respond to climate change

Isabella Kaminski Fri 4 Jul 2025 07.53 AEST

There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled.

…

In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown. That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.

…

The IACHR’s founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the US and Canada.

…

The inter-American court of human rights is the second of four top courts to publish an advisory opinion on climate change.

The first court to publish its opinion, the international tribunal for the law of the sea, concluded last year that greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them.

…Read more: 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/03/countries-must-protect-human-right-to-a-stable-climate-court-rules

Court judgement links:

Press release: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/comunicados_prensa.cfm?lang=en&n=2151
Consultative opinion page: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/OC-32-2025/index-eng.html
Consultative opinion (?) – Spanish, dated 29th May: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_esp.pdf

There may be a more recent document, please post in comments if you find it.

The 29th May consultative opinion I found contains lots of references to “desinformación”, including this apparent call for censorship of dissenting views;

529. Finalmente, teniendo en cuenta el papel determinante que desempeñan en esta
materia las empresas, los desarrolladores de tecnología digital, las plataformas
tecnológicas, las redes sociales y los medios de comunicación, la Corte enfatiza la
necesidad de que, conforme a lo señalado en el Pacto para el Futuro, los Estados
colaboren con dichos actores para fortalecer la alfabetización mediática e informativa.
Esta colaboración debe orientarse a que las personas usuarias adquieran habilidades
y conocimientos que les permitan interactuar de manera crítica, segura y consciente
con los contenidos digitales. En suma, este Tribunal subraya que el acceso a
información veraz y confiable en el contexto de la emergencia climática hace necesario
el compromiso conjunto de los Estados y los actores privados para prevenir y
contrarrestar la desinformación.

GOOGLE Translate:

529. Finally, taking into account the determining role they play in this matter companies, digital technology developers, platforms technological technologies, social networks and the media, the Court emphasizes the need that, in accordance with what is indicated in the Pact for the Future, the States collaborate with these actors to strengthen media and information literacy. This collaboration should be aimed at ensuring that users acquire skills and knowledge that allows them to interact critically, safely and consciously with digital content. In short, this Court emphasizes that access to truthful and reliable information in the context of the climate emergency makes it necessary the joint commitment of States and private actors to prevent and counteract misinformation.

Read more: 

https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_32_esp.pdf

The article references a previous agreement by an international body to start charging a carbon tax on all global shipping. The following is the WUWT article on the previous international tribunal for the law of the sea ruling.

Net Zero Cargo Ships? International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea Demands Climate Action

I doubt this nonsense judgement will have any impact on the USA, at least under the current administration. The Trump administration responded in the lead up to the previous ITLOS tribunal judgement (see above) with a threat of retaliation against any nation which tries to impose carbon taxes on US shipping.

Trump tells countries to ax talks on shipping carbon tax, or else

The attack on the shipping deal is part of a wider U.S. rejection of policies to fight climate change.

APRIL 9, 2025 10:50 AM CET

BY FONIE MITSOPOULOU

LONDON — The Trump administration has upended what it calls “blatantly unfair” talks to set a carbon tax on international shipping and has vowed “reciprocal measures” to shield U.S. ships from any fees, according to a letter seen by POLITICO.

…

It was circulated to many embassies of the other countries in attendance by the U.S. government. It was seen by POLITICO, having been obtained by an industry group via a national delegation, and was confirmed by other participants in the talks.

The letter stated: “President Trump has made it clear that the U.S. will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the U.S. or the interest of the American people.”

…Read more: 

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-scrap-maritime-decarbonization-talks/

The Trump administration and Vice President Vance have also taken a firm line against attempts by overseas bodies to censor American free speech.

JD Vance says US could drop support for NATO if Europe tries to regulate Elon Musk’s platforms

Republican vice presidential nominee says ‘Germans and other nations’ – not Russia – would ‘have to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction’ 

Gustaf Kilander
Washington DC
Tuesday 17 September 2024 22:39 BST

JD Vance has suggested that American support for NATO should be predicated on the European Union not regulating Elon Musk and his X social media platform, formerly known as Twitter.

The Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio senator claimed in an interview with YouTuber Shawn Ryan that a top EU official had threatened to arrest the billionaire if he allowed former President Donald Trump back on X. 

“The leader, I forget exactly which official it was within the European Union, but sent Elon this threatening letter that basically said, ‘We’re going to arrest you if you platform Donald Trump,’ who, by the way, is the likely next president of the United States,” Vance said in the interview published last week.

…Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jd-vance-elon-musk-x-twitter-donald-trump-b2614525.html

I’m guessing any nation which attempts to use this absurd judgement as an excuse to loot US companies or punish US social media companies will face a similarly vigorous response from the Trump Administration.

It is unfortunate the court consultative opinion only appears to be available in Spanish. If any fluent Spanish speakers have time to wade through 234 pages of legalise, or can find more recent documents, please post any other interesting clauses in the court ruling in comments. This would be a useful exercise even if an English version of the ruling is made available, sometimes different language versions of documents contain substantial discrepancies.

Met Office Caught Deliberately Choosing an Unrealistic Scenario to Predict Climate Doomsday

Revved up by the orgy of climate alarmism opportunities supplied by the recent heatwave, the Met Office has taken to making apocalyptic forecasts for the year 2070.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Will Jones

Revved up by the orgy of climate alarmism opportunities supplied by the recent heatwave, the Met Office has taken to making apocalyptic forecasts for the year 2070. In the Telegraph, Matt Ridley takes the national forecaster to task for basing these doomy predictions on modelling even the IPCC rejects. Here’s an excerpt.

The Met Office exists to forecast the weather. But increasingly it seems bored by the day job so it likes to lecture us about climate change. And here it seems to have been embarrassingly duped by activists. Go on its climate pages and you find a forecast for the year 2070, that summers will be between one and six degrees warmer and “up to” 60% drier, depending on the region. A lot of wriggle room in those caveats, note.

Then it admits: “We base these changes on the RCP8.5 high emissions scenario.” Aha! Unbelievably, shockingly, this national forecasting body has chosen as its base case for the future of weather a debunked, highly implausible set of assumptions about the world economy that was never intended to be used this way.

RCP8.5 is one of five projected futures for the world economy this century, dreamt up by economists. Here is what it assumes. First, the world becomes addicted to coal, burning 10 times – yes, 10 times! – as much coal in 2100 as we did in 2000 and even using coal to make fuel for aircraft and cars. Yes: that is really what it says. It projects that fully half of all the world’s energy will be supplied by coal in 2100.

Second, it assumes that the world population will have swelled to 12 billion people by 2100, way more than any demographer thinks is likely. Third, it assumes that innovation will somehow dry up so there’s hardly any new technology to make our lives more fuel-efficient – and we won’t even try to cut emissions. In short, this scenario is barking mad.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Carbon Brief, an activist website, has to say: “The creators of RCP8.5 had not intended it to represent the most likely ‘business as usual’ outcome. … Its subsequent use as such represents something of a breakdown in communication between energy systems modellers and the climate modelling community.”

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that RCP8.5 should not be used as a forecast. And here’s its chief creator, Keywan Riahi: “I wished I would have been clearer with what I meant by ‘business as usual’.”

Worth reading in full.

Energy Independence Day: Freedom from the Climate Cult

This Independence Day carries a deeper meaning than fireworks and parades—it marks a resurgence of true American sovereignty in energy policy and scientific discourse. In just under six months under the renewed Trump administration, the nation has begun to reclaim its independence—not just from foreign energy sources, but from the stifling orthodoxy of climate alarmism.

From Watts Up With That?

By Charles Rotter

This Independence Day carries a deeper meaning than fireworks and parades—it marks a resurgence of true American sovereignty in energy policy and scientific discourse. In just under six months under the renewed Trump administration, the nation has begun to reclaim its independence—not just from foreign energy sources, but from the stifling orthodoxy of climate alarmism.

Gone are the days of shackling our economy to the whims of unaccountable international panels and flawed computer models. With the signing of Executive Order 14162, America formally severed its ties to the Paris Agreement once more, signaling to the world that our energy future will be dictated by reason, economics, and liberty—not speculative catastrophe and international guilt-tripping. As the order plainly states, the United States now prioritizes “economic efficiency, the promotion of American prosperity, consumer choice, and fiscal restraint in all foreign engagements that concern energy policy.” This is not just policy—it is a declaration of energy independence.

Over 70 climate edicts and initiatives from the prior administration were repealed, dismantling a framework that had little grounding in empirical science and much to do with ideological control. No longer are American families subsidizing unaccountable foreign climate programs or paying inflated utility bills in homage to an imaginary climate apocalypse.

This July 4th, we celebrate more than the memory of 1776—we celebrate the reassertion of common sense. Regulatory overreach is being rolled back. The fossil fuel industry, a cornerstone of American progress and employment, is no longer treated as a pariah. Nuclear power is once again acknowledged for what it is: a clean, scalable, and reliable energy source capable of supporting modern civilization without virtue-signaling subsidies.

Rooftop solar credits and other market-distorting handouts are being phased out—not because solar is evil, but because real freedom means letting technologies stand or fall on their own merit. The end of federal favoritism towards so-called “clean energy” is a victory for competition, not a defeat for innovation.

Environmental policy is no longer a proxy war for ideological crusaders. With the EPA refocused on practical stewardship and the Department of Energy streamlining fossil fuel and nuclear projects, Washington is finally remembering that prosperity and pollution reduction are not mutually exclusive.

This is energy liberty. It is the freedom to heat your home without bureaucratic interference, to choose your energy provider without being coerced into a Green New Deal fantasy, and to pursue scientific truth without fear of cancellation or rebuke from self-appointed “climate experts.”

So, light your sparklers, fire up the grill, and fly your flag high. This Independence Day, we celebrate not just the founding of a nation, but the restoration of its right to determine its own future—grounded in reason, powered by affordable energy, and liberated from the chains of climate orthodoxy. The revolution continues—and this time, it’s electrified by American ingenuity, not hamstrung by speculative fear.

Eco Loons Attack Slough For Booming Economy

In any sane world Slough and the Government would be celebrating the influx of these data centres, which bring well paid jobs and boost the local economy.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Sometimes I’m lost for words!

The Telegraph reports:

Slough has emerged as Britain’s fastest-growing pollution hotspot, with its surging data centre industry driving up greenhouse gas emissions.

The southern town’s concentration of more than 30 massive data centres has pushed up commercial emissions by 52pc since 2005 – making it the only place in the UK to see such a rapid rise in pollution.

Slough’s total emissions equate to five tonnes of CO2 for each of its citizens – far above the three tonnes per person seen in traditional industrial areas such as South Tyneside, the 3.7 tonnes recorded in Newcastle upon Tyne and the four tonnes recorded in Sunderland.

The figures come from the latest government data on the UK’s local and regional greenhouse gas statistics, which said Slough stood out from Britain’s other council authority areas.

“All but one of the UK’s 361 local authority areas have seen a reduction in commercial emissions since 2005,” said the report, covering emissions from 2005-2023.

The one authority that saw an increase is Slough, where commercial sector emissions increased by 52pc between 2005 and 2023. This increase may be because of the large number of data centres that have been built there.”

Full story here.

In any sane world Slough and the Government would be celebrating the influx of these data centres, which bring well paid jobs and boost the local economy. But not according to the wally who runs Slough Council:

Dexter Smith, Conservative leader of Slough Council, said the new figures were a bombshell because of the borough’s aim of becoming carbon-neutral by 2040, with ambitions to achieve this by 2030.

He said Slough’s hopes of improving life expectancy for its citizens – currently 10 years lower than in surrounding boroughs – lay in opening the way for more such high-tech developments.

“I would be devastated if the explanation for this data was down to Slough’s high concentration of data centres … We have 31 data centres with more on the way. Planning applications will have to comply with operating requirements that include stringent control of emissions and being carbon neutral,” he said.

What makes his utterly ludicrous statement even more hypocritical is that he, the Town Council and every inhabitant of Slough will still need and use these data centres wherever they are built.

Jonathan Leake who wrote this piece is little better, calling carbon dioxide “pollution”:

“making it the only place in the UK to see such a rapid rise in pollution”

Maybe someone ought to tell him that it is a natural gas, without which there would be no life on earth!

He also seems quite proud of the fact that:

“By contrast, the emissions from the entire North East of England – a much larger area – fell from 2.9m tonnes in 2005 to just 960,000 tonnes in 2023. It means emissions per person in the North East fell from 13.4 tonnes to just 3.1 tonnes – far lower than in Slough, and a direct consequence of the collapse of energy-intensive industries in the region”.

That’s the way, Jonathan – let’s shut down the whole UK economy to cut emissions!

Four Reasons Why This 4th of July Is Better

As Americans fire up their grills and head out on road trips, there’s something to celebrate this Independence Day: energy sanity is making a comeback.

This year, there’s a little more freedom on the menu. After years of being shackled by a radical green agenda, 2025 is shaping up to be the year we finally hit the brakes and throw it in reverse.

From Watts Up With That?

By Larry Behrens

As Americans fire up their grills and head out on road trips, there’s something to celebrate this Independence Day: energy sanity is making a comeback.

This year, there’s a little more freedom on the menu. After years of being shackled by a radical green agenda, 2025 is shaping up to be the year we finally hit the brakes and throw it in reverse.

Here are four reasons why this 4th of July is better than the last:

1. Gas prices are over 31 cents cheaper

According to AAA, the national average for gasoline is more than 31 cents cheaper per gallon than it was last year at this time. That may not sound like much—until you fill up your tank and realize that’s nearly $5 per fill up in a 15-gallon tank. Better yet, gas is now a whopping $1.83 cheaper per gallon than the record highs we saw under Joe Biden just three years ago. 

That’s not an accident. It’s the result of prioritizing American energy, not punishing it.

2. You don’t live in California or Washington

While much of America is seeing relief at the pump, California and Washington are doubling down on failure.

In California, gas prices—already the highest in the nation—are about to skyrocket by 65 cents a gallon thanks to regulations and a state gas tax hike. 

Meanwhile, in Washington, gas prices have actually gone up 10 cents from last year, bucking the national trend. And on July 1st, the state is tacking on a new 6-cent-per-gallon gas tax, because nothing says “happy Independence Day” like making driving unaffordable. 

If you’re not in those states, breathe a sigh of relief—and maybe send a thank-you card to your local leaders who haven’t lost their minds.

3. The war against our appliances is over

This Independence Day, go ahead and crank the air conditioner and fire up that gas grill—because the federal assault on your home appliances is over.

The Biden administration’s war on dishwashers, water heaters, stoves, and ceiling fans has been halted. The savings are real as the cost of replacing everything Joe Biden wanted you to replace in your house was near $10,000 per home. And that’s even before you buy that electric vehicle! This year, the senseless effort to force every American into higher costs and worse performance has officially been scrapped. 

Be sure to celebrate by using your appliances freely—without guilt, government overreach, or green lecturing.

4. The Big Beautiful Bill beats back the Green New Scam

Remember the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? It turned out to be a massive slush fund for green special interests and Chinese supply chains. But now, the Big Beautiful Bill is finally pulling the plug.

Washington, D.C. is proposing to phase out wasteful green energy tax credits, and even better—impose a new tax on wind and solar projects that rely on Chinese components.  If your so-called clean energy plan depends on slave labor and subsidies, maybe it’s not that clean after all.

Last year, Americans were told to accept high prices, appliance mandates, and dependence on China—all in the name of a green fantasy. This year, we’re turning the page.

Gas is cheaper. Appliance tyranny is dead. Green grift is getting taxed. And a little common sense is finally clawing its way back into Washington, D.C.

So, this 4th of July, as you hit the road, flip the burgers, and crank the AC, remember this: we’re proudly celebrating America’s independence— but we’re also reclaiming our own.

From gas tanks to grill flames, freedom is back—and it runs on American energy.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

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

A Blobocrat Court rules that perfect weather is a “human right”

A group of unelected officials in something called the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has decided that humans have the “right” to a stable climate and thus, you have the right to pay for it. The court that nobody has heard of says “states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown.”

This includes the obligation to cut emissions, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation. (Yes, they know they are lying.)

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

The Blob makes another move to expand their empire

A group of unelected officials in something called the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has decided that humans have the “right” to a stable climate and thus, you have the right to pay for it.  The court that nobody has heard of says “states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown.”

This includes the obligation to cut emissions, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation. (Yes, they know they are lying.)

Personally I’d prefer to have the right to free speech, real science, and laws written in simple English:

Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules

Isabella Kaminski, The Guardian

There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled.

“Top court”, my foot.

Like pagan sorcery, the government is expected to stop storms, floods and droughts. Even though this is an impossible fantasy the mere attempt at managing the illusion of it will employ tens of thousands of lawyers, accountants, technicians, diplomats and representatives who will all get travel allowance and hardship funding for flights to Tahiti. And that’s the whole point isn’t it?  

Announcing the publication of a crucial advisory opinion on climate change on Thursday, Nancy Hernández López, president of the inter-American court of human rights (IACHR), said climate change carries “extraordinary risks” that are felt particularly keenly by people who are already vulnerable.

This is a form of meta-lawfare — to get around the problem of a “science debate” they can’t win, some random court makes a ruling that simply assumes that governments can control the weather, and that speaking against it is going to harm “the vulnerable” (which really means it will hurt lifelong career grifters.) This toothless unaccountable court is a legal theatre that generates headlines, pressure, and ammunition for lawyers in more important courts to try to glue this kind of parasite into proper court rulings. They will cite this absurd legalese fantasy to baffle anyone who gets in their way, and to wind up teenage girls and journalists in The Guardian:

In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown. That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.

The IACHR’s founding purpose is to interpret and apply the American convention on human rights, a treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS). But its newly published opinion takes into account a broad range of national, regional and international laws and principles. And it affirms that the findings not just apply only to signatories of the convention but to all 35 members of the OAS, which includes the US and Canada.

So who funds these unaccountable Judges?

This human rights court is a part of the Organization of American States or OAS — it’s a kind of American continent mini-UN. There are 35 states signed up to it, whatever that means, but traditionally the US pays 60% of the regular funds (stop me if you’ve heard this before). Lately, other extra funding is volunteered from a Who’s Who of Globalist Blob entities like the UN, EU, World Bank and George Soros’s Open Society. Every part of the Blob loves every other part…

Presumably Donald Trump is busy with other things, but he has called for a review of the $60 odd million in funding the US government sends towards this rusted on Blobocracy which was created in 1948. This is $60 million in “free” fundraising money for the One World Government Blob. Let’s just say “No”.

If the climate really faces a crisis, more than anything else, we have the right to real science with real debate; not petty namecalling like “climate denier”, or censorious laws about “climate disinformation”.

Citizens have a right to be protected from The Blob.

Image by Michael Seibt from Pixabay

Why Your EV Won’t Fill Up In Five

The headlines practically write themselves. If you believe the hype, we’ll soon be zipping across continents on a single charge, stopping only long enough to grab a coffee while our car slurps down enough energy to power a small hospital.

From Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Well, it’s happened again. The tech press is in full swoon, the Twitterati are high-fiving in the digital aisles, and the battery boys at Huawei are strutting around like they’ve just reinvented fire.

“Solid-state battery! 1,800 miles of range! Five-minute charge!”

The headlines practically write themselves. If you believe the hype, we’ll soon be zipping across continents on a single charge, stopping only long enough to grab a coffee while our car slurps down enough energy to power a small hospital. Here’s Huawei’s claim:

Huawei, the Chinese technology giant, has recently made waves in the electric vehicle (EV) industry with claims of a groundbreaking solid-state battery that could redefine the future of transportation.

According to reports from TechRadar, Huawei asserts that this new battery technology can deliver an astonishing range of up to 1,800 miles on a single charge while achieving a full recharge in under five minutes. If verified, these specifications could position Huawei as a formidable player in the EV battery race, challenging established leaders like Tesla, BYD, and CATL.

But, as usual, reality is hiding out in the fine print, ducking the spotlight while the PR machine does its victory lap. Nobody wants to talk about physics. Nobody asks how, exactly, you’re supposed to pour Niagara Falls through a garden hose.

Let’s start with the chemistry, because that’s what gets the headlines. Huawei, CATL, BYD, and every battery startup with a logo and a LinkedIn page are racing to show off lab results with solid electrolytes, nitrogen-doped sulfide electrodes, and energy densities that would make a Tesla blush. Yes, it’s impressive. Yes, it’s real science. Yes, the batteries likely exist, even if only in lab versions.

But chemistry is only half the story—the easy half, frankly. The hard part is what comes after: getting all that energy in and out of the battery without melting the neighborhood. Let’s do some back-of-the-envelope math, my favorite kind.

Charging a 600 kWh battery in 5 minutes isn’t a “nice to have” kind of deal. It’s a “requires the power output of a small hydroelectric dam” situation.

Energy equals power multiplied by time. So: 600 kWh divided by (5/60) hours is 7,200 kW—7.2 megawatts—per car. That’s not a typo. MEGAwatts. Per car. That’s the kind of load that would make your local substation break out in hives.

And it’s not just the grid. You’ll need:

  • High-voltage wiring thicker than your wrist
  • Transformers the size of shipping containers
  • Power cables with active cooling, or else they’ll melt like a cheap extension cord at a Fourth of July barbecue
  • Buffer batteries to keep the grid from doing a faceplant every time someone plugs in their new wonder-car

And don’t get me started on “green electricity.” The fantasy is that we’ll run this whole show on wind and solar, but unless you’re planning to build a solar farm the size of Luxembourg in every city, you’re dreaming. Fast charging at this scale is not compatible with the current “green” grid, and won’t be for decades—if ever. A couple of charging poles and a few rooftop panels aren’t going to cut it. We’re talking industrial-scale power plants, and even then, you’re right on the edge.

Here’s the cold hand of physics. Car batteries are at around 400 volts or so. 7.2 megawatts divided by 400 volts gives us 18,000 amperes. Per car. The typical US house has a 90 amp service, coming in on large overhead or underground cables. I’m sure you can see the problem …

To deliver 18,000 amps per car, you need connectors that look more like fire hoses than anything you’ve seen at a gas station. These electrical cables must be actively cooled, or they’ll turn into modern art. Cables are rated by their “ampacity”, which is how many amps of electricity they can carry safely without overheating. According to the NEC ampacity charts, the largest standard copper wire size, 2000 kcmil, has an ampacity of only 750 amps at 90°C, and we need an ampacity of 18,000 amps. (A “cmil” is a circular mil, which is the area of a circle 1/1000 of an inch in diameter. A “kcmil” is a thousand cmils. And no, I don’t know how many cmils there are in a bushel …)

A 2000 kcmil cable is about an inch and a half (3.8 cm) in diameter. Here’s a single 2000 kcmil underground direct-burial cable … and you’d need 24 of them to handle 18,000 amps.

The problem is that if you put more amperes of electricity through the cable and exceed the cable’s ampacity, it melts. Which is why you’d need a serious cooling system for charging cables if they are to be of a useable size … and if the cooling fails, you don’t want to be anywhere near the cable.

And if a few hundred cars plug in at once without a buffer? Say hello to an instant blackout.

The battery companies don’t care. Their job is chemistry. The rest is “someone else’s problem”—which is to say, yours. Or your city’s. Or your utility’s.

Who’s going to pay for the grid upgrades, the transformers, the buffer batteries, the land, the cooling systems, the huge connectors, the maintenance, the insurance? If you don’t own an electric car, are you ready to pay for your neighbor’s five-minute charge via higher taxes or utility rates? And if you do own an EV, are you prepared to shell out $500–600 per charge just to cover the infrastructure?

Here’s the bottom line: rapid charging is a lab dream, not a real-world solution for EVs. Technically, it absolutely works. Practically, fuggetaboudit. For most people, charging will still be a 30–90 minute affair—if not longer. Maybe that’s why Toyota, BMW, and Mercedes are quietly tiptoeing back to hydrogen, hybrids, and expensive e-fuels made from hydrogen plus CO2.

The electric car revolution is here, but the real revolution that’s needed isn’t in the battery—it’s in the ground, in the cables, in the substations, in the cable cooling systems, in the grid, in the generators, in the transformers, and in the cold, hard economics of power delivery. So before you run out and buy that car with “five-minute charging,” maybe ask yourself: Who’s building the grid? Who’s cooling the cables? And who, exactly, is paying for this party?

Because until someone answers those questions, the only thing getting charged in five minutes is your credit card.

My best to all, petrolheads and ampereheads alike.

w.

Yeah, I know you know, and I’ll tell you again anyhow: When you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. It avoids endless misunderstandings.

False, Sustainability Magazine, Heat Waves Aren’t Breaking the Grid

In the article “Climate Change: How Heatwaves are Affecting Power Grids,” Sustainability Magazine (SM) claims that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves, which are allegedly placing growing strain on power grids worldwide. This claim is at best, highly misleading, and at worst, outright false. Data does not support the notion that heat waves are increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

In the article “Climate Change: How Heatwaves are Affecting Power Grids,” Sustainability Magazine (SM) claims that human-caused climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of heat waves, which are allegedly placing growing strain on power grids worldwide. This claim is at best, highly misleading, and at worst, outright false. Data does not support the notion that heat waves are increasing in frequency or intensity on a global scale. Evidence instead suggests that localized temperature increases, especially in urban areas where power grids are concentrated, are primarily driven by the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect—not global climate change. Evidence also strongly suggests that to the extent power grids are being stretched to the limits it is due to the addition of intermittent power in the form of industrial wind and solar facilities to the grid.

“Human-caused climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of heatwaves since the 1950s and is set to continue to do so according to the World Meteorological Organisation,” says SM. “As temperatures continue to stay hot, power grids and markets are facing strain.”

The narrative pushed by SM is belied by the fact that there is no long-term upward trend in heat wave frequency or intensity when global datasets are correctly adjusted for the UHI effect. For example, Climate Realism carefully analyzed heat wave claims in several articles, here, here, and here, which explain that despite fluctuations year to year, the occurrence of heat waves over the last century has not trended upward globally. In fact, the hottest years in U.S. history for sustained heat waves remain in the 1930s, a period with significantly lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels than today.

It is critical to emphasize that heat waves are driven by weather patterns, particularly persistent high-pressure systems that block cooler air from moving into a region. These atmospheric blocking patterns are not new, nor are they caused by minor increases in the global average temperature. The distinction between weather and climate is often blurred in popular reporting, but they are fundamentally different. Weather is immediate and local; climate is long-term and regional or global. Heat waves are, and always have been, weather events.

The UHI effect is a well-documented phenomenon where cities experience significantly higher temperatures than surrounding rural areas due to heat retention by concrete, asphalt, and other man-made surfaces. This effect can elevate temperatures at the very locations where electrical infrastructure resides, potentially exacerbating stress on those systems. However, this localized warming is often misinterpreted as evidence of widespread, climate-driven heat wave intensification. In reality, it is a localized artifact of urbanization and poor siting of weather stations, not a signal of planetary-scale change.

The article’s claim that 2025 has already seen heat waves striking China, the United States, Canada, France, and the United Kingdom is presented as though this constitutes evidence of a crisis. Yet the historical record shows that heat waves have periodically occurred in these regions, throughout history, long before the modern industrial era, sometimes simultaneously. There is currently no sound data to support the idea that simultaneous heat waves in multiple countries are exclusively a modern phenomenon caused by fossil fuels. Heat waves are episodic weather events, not unprecedented crises.

Furthermore, the suggestion that the power grid is under exceptional strain due to climate-induced heat waves is a deflection from the real problem: energy policy failures. As covered in detail on Watts Up With That in the articles “Media Chases ‘Climate Enhanced’ Heat Waves, Misses Data Showing They are Less Frequent” and “The Grid Speaks,” power grids in the U.S. and Europe are increasingly fragile because reliable baseload generation from coal and nuclear plants has been intentionally phased out in favor of intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. These renewable sources often underperform during peak demand events, including heat waves, exacerbating grid instability. Solar panels, for example, lose efficiency, meaning the power they generate declines, during periods of high heat.

SM acknowledges that solar panel efficiency drops by up to 25% during heat waves without a hint of irony. If hot weather undermines solar power output during periods of peak electricity demand, that is a glaring indictment of our growing dependence on solar energy, not a call to double down on it. This vulnerability to heat is a well-known design flaw of solar panels, yet the article glosses over it in favor of advocating more renewable energy.

Also, extended heatwaves are regularly accompanied by no or low wind currents, one reason heat domes or heat waves linger over multiple days. When that occurs wind turbines aren’t generating power, either.

In “Powering through the heat: how 2024 heatwaves reshaped electricity demand, “ Ember’s analyst claims that higher air conditioning use is causing grid stress, this conveniently ignores that robust grids with sufficient dispatchable power have historically handled peak loads without widespread blackouts. The problem is not ramped up air conditioner use—it’s that grid operators in most western countries have been forced, by politicians, to heavily rely on solar and wind power sources that can’t always deliver power when it’s most needed, as seen in the figure below:

SM’s mention of power plants reducing output due to warm cooling water is also framed as though it’s a new, climate-driven problem. In reality, power plants have always had to manage cooling limitations during hot weather, and operational procedures to address this have been in place for decades. This is not a new vulnerability, nor does it signify an accelerating climate crisis.

Heat waves are not a novel threat, nor are they becoming more dangerous due to a minor uptick in average global temperatures. They are part of natural weather variability and have occurred throughout history, including during periods when global temperatures were cooler than today. For example, Climate Realism shows that heat waves in the 1930s were both longer and more severe than anything experienced in recent decades, even as carbon dioxide levels were far lower.

Blackouts during heat waves are dangerous, but blaming such failures on climate change instead of on poorly managed energy policies and fragile grids dominated by weather-dependent renewables is a complete abdication of responsibility.

In closing, Sustainability Magazine should be ashamed of this sloppy, one-sided piece that parrot’s climate alarm talking points without the slightest attempt to critically examine the underlying data or consider alternative explanations increasingly stressed power grids. This article reads less like journalism and more like advocacy masquerading as science. It is precisely this sort of lazy, echo-chamber reporting that erodes public trust and undermines rational discourse on energy and climate. If Sustainability Magazine wants to be taken seriously, it would do well to start by doing its homework.