Tropical forests in Indonesia ravaged by push for EV batteries

The wanton destruction of tropical rainforests in Indonesia by predominantly Chinese mining companies eager to extract nickel for EV batteries is the price the world must pay in the transition to โ€œclean energy.โ€
โ€œIndonesia is the worldโ€™s biggest nickel producer, and has the largest reserves on earth, most of which are in Sulawesi and Halmahera islands,โ€ Climate Home News noted last December.

Aerial view of a deforested mining site in Indonesia, showing heaps of excavated earth and machinery amidst a landscape that was once a tropical forest.

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

The wanton destruction of tropical rainforests in Indonesia by predominantly Chinese mining companies eager to extract nickel for EV batteries is the price the world must pay in the transition to โ€œclean energy.โ€

โ€œIndonesia is the worldโ€™s biggest nickel producer, and has the largest reserves on earth, most of which are in Sulawesi and Halmahera islands,โ€ Climate Home News noted last December.

These so-called โ€œnickel provincesโ€ are taking center stage in an ecological and human tragedy unfolding in the vast tropical archipelago.

Once known for making stainless steel, nickel is now essential in EV lithium-ion batteries, where it boosts energy density and increases EV driving range.

Indonesia banned the export of nickel ore in 2020, calculating that it could earn higher revenues and create more jobs by processing its vast reserves of nickel domestically. To meet the demand for processed nickel, the country has built 25 smelters in recent years, with 22 more planned, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. The infrastructure buildout has been enhanced by locating EV battery factories with the smelters.

Of the 2,273,000 acres of nickel mining concessions in Indonesia, about two-thirds are under forest cover. The nickel ore deposits are in layers of rock near the surface, typically 20 to 50 feet deep, and are readily accessible through open-pit mining once the trees have been cleared. The removal of trees from the tropical forest has been running at a blistering pace. 

โ€œAerial photographs captured by drones show vast tracks of deforested land and polluted runoff flowing into the surrounding waters,โ€ Climate Fact Checks reported in June. โ€œThese waters, once home to vibrant coral reefs, now face threats from sedimentation, which can smother marine life and other delicate ecosystems.โ€

A recent analysis of rainforest loss, based on Indonesian government data, โ€œshows deforestation rose from an average of 33 square kilometers (about 13 square miles) around each smelter, to 63 square kilometers (about 24.5 square miles),โ€ the Associated Press reported.  โ€œIf all 22 new plants are built, deforestation is likely to increase dramatically.โ€

Until a few years ago, Indonesiaโ€™s rainforests were threatened by illegal logging and the expansion of plantations for palm oil and plywood. However, new laws and stepped-up enforcement over the past 15 years sharply curtailed these practices.

Now, a far more serious threat is posed by what energy analyst Vijay Jayaraj calls โ€œthe voracious EV supply chain.โ€

โ€œIn a standard EV battery, the 43 kilograms of nickel is the most expensive raw material, costing more than $750 (per kilogram),โ€ Jayaraj points out.  โ€œBy 2030, global EV sales are projected to top 50 million units per year, with batteries driving more than half of the surge in nickel demand, soaking up over 15 million metric tons annually.โ€

โ€œSustainabilityโ€ has long been a buzzword in environmentalism. According to Penn State Sustainability, โ€œSustainability is the simultaneous pursuit of human health and happiness, environmental quality, and economic well-being for current and future generations.โ€

The United Nations says that sustainable development goals should include โ€œimproving the lives of populations around the world and mitigating the hazardous effects of man-made climate change.โ€

These definitions are not compatible with an analysis by the nonprofit Auriga of the effects of nickel development driven by EV batteries in Indonesia. โ€œThe damage to the environment is devastating,โ€ said the organizationโ€™s chairman, Timer Manurung.  โ€œDeforestation has significantly increased โ€ฆ rivers are polluted, mangroves are cut to develop smelter areas, coastal areas and coral are being damaged by the smelters.โ€

Everything from mudslides caused by the removal of trees from hillsides to frequent power outages in nearby villages brought about by the diversion of electricity to nickel mining operations is being done in the name of transitioning to green energy. The tropical rainforests of Indonesia, like those elsewhere in equatorial regions โ€” along with the unique wildlife they support โ€” were made possible by warm temperatures and elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.  Yet, carbon dioxide has been demonized as causing what has been called the โ€œclimate crisis,โ€ justifying decarbonization efforts, in which EVs play a prominent role. The consequences of these actions, visible to everyone who looks, speak for themselves.

โ€œThe future of Indonesiaโ€™s magnificent forests now hinges on a critical choice,โ€ energy analyst Jayaraj says. โ€œWhether to continue chasing the illusion of a โ€˜clean energyโ€™ future at the expense of real-world devastation required to build it?โ€

This article originally appeared at DC Journal


Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior policy advisor at National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Articles by Dr. Cohen have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Investorโ€™s Business Daily, New York Post, Washington Times, National Review, Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit News, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Miami Herald, and dozens of other newspapers in the U.S. and Canada. He has been interviewed on Fox News, CNN, Fox Business Channel, BBC, BBC Worldwide Television, NBC, NPR, N 24 (German language news channel), Voice of Russia, and scores of radio stations in the U.S. Dr. Cohen has testified before the U.S. Senate committees on Energy & Natural Resources and Environment & Public Works as well as the U.S. House committees on Natural Resources and Judiciary. He has spoken at conferences in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Bangladesh. Dr. Cohen is the author of two books, The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences (Washington: Capital Research Center, 2006) and Marshall, Mao und Chiang: Die amerikanischen Vermittlungsbemuehungen im chinesischen Buergerkrieg (Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War) (Munich: Tuduv Verlag, 1984). Dr. Cohen received his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D. โ€“ summa cum laude โ€“ from the University of Munich.

Claim: Overpopulation Climate Claims are โ€œA Dangerous Lieโ€, We Just Need Wealth Redistribution

See? To solve the climate crisis, we should reject the overpopulation fascists and embrace the redistribution communists instead.

Artistic depiction of a historical figure raising a fist, characterized by a green background and a rose on the lapel.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Graph depicting the annual world population growth rate from 1950 to 2100, showing a decline in growth over time with notable peaks in the early 1960s.

โ€œThis isnโ€™t a population crisis. Itโ€™s a distribution crisis.โ€

โ€˜Dangerousโ€™ population lie billionaires want you to believe

A reporter has called out a dangerous population myth โ€“ one designed to protect billionaires while punishing everyday people.

Carly Wright
October 15, 2025 โ€“ 2:32PM

Itโ€™s one of the most persistent climate myths out there: the planet is frying because there are simply too many people.

But journalist Louisa Schneider has taken to TikTok to call it out for what it really is โ€“ a โ€œdangerousโ€ lie.

โ€œThey want us to believe that the climate crisis is caused by โ€˜overpopulation.โ€™ 

โ€œBut we have enough resources for everyone!โ€ the text of her video read. 

โ€œThis isnโ€™t a population crisis. Itโ€™s a distribution crisis.โ€

โ€œAnd the myth of overpopulation? Itโ€™s not just wrong โ€“ itโ€™s dangerous.โ€

โ€ฆ

Schneider pointed to a 2023 Oxfam report which found the richest 1 per cent of the worldโ€™s population were responsible for as much carbon pollution in 2019 as two-thirds of everyone else combined.

That same year, their emissions alone were estimated to have caused more than 1.3 million heat-related deaths, Oxfam putting it bluntly: the super-rich โ€œburned through their share of the global carbon budgetโ€ within the first 10 days of the year.

โ€ฆ

Schneiderโ€™s takeaway? The Earth doesnโ€™t have a people problem โ€“ it has a power problem.

Read more:ย https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/dangerous-population-lie-billionaires-want-you-to-believe/news-story/3757284704ab57f0c3044a71ab96f6ea

See? To solve the climate crisis, we should reject the overpopulation fascists and embrace the redistribution communists instead.

I wish schools still made an effort to teach history. Then otherwise intelligent people might stop dredging these dreadful failed ideas from the trashcan of history and presenting them as new and innovative solutions to imaginary problems.

Who’s Afraid Of Mayor Mamdani?

Here in New York City, our mayoral election is less than 3 weeks away. Crazed โ€œDemocratic Socialistโ€ candidate Zohran Mamdani continues to hold a commanding lead in the polls, with no signs of any tightening. Among Mamdaniโ€™s announced policies are a substantial increase in the city income tax on โ€œmillionaires,โ€ a multi-year rent freeze on rent-regulated apartments, having social workers instead of police respond to domestic violence calls, and having Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he shows up in town. Meanwhile, at both the City and State levels, destructive and impossible โ€œclimateโ€ policies remain in place, like mandates to have 70% of electricity come from โ€œrenewablesโ€ by 2030 and to electrify most heat in large buildings by the same year.

A political rally featuring the candidate Zohran Mamdani, surrounded by supporters holding signs for the Working Families Party and advocating for issues like childcare and rent freeze.

From Manhattan Contrarian

By Francis Menton

Here in New York City, our mayoral election is less than 3 weeks away. Crazed โ€œDemocratic Socialistโ€ candidate Zohran Mamdani continues to hold a commanding lead in the polls, with no signs of any tightening. Among Mamdaniโ€™s announced policies are a substantial increase in the city income tax on โ€œmillionaires,โ€ a multi-year rent freeze on rent-regulated apartments, having social workers instead of police respond to domestic violence calls, and having Benjamin Netanyahu arrested if he shows up in town. Meanwhile, at both the City and State levels, destructive and impossible โ€œclimateโ€ policies remain in place, like mandates to have 70% of electricity come from โ€œrenewablesโ€ by 2030 and to electrify most heat in large buildings by the same year.

You might think that panic would be starting to set in among the productive classes. But in fact that does not appear to be the case, at least as far as I can observe. Instead, most people are proceeding as if none of this is real. Are they right?

For example, here is some news from the real estate market. The Wall Street Journal had a piece on Wednesday (print edition) with the headline (online edition) โ€œThe New York City Office Market Is Roaring Back, and Itโ€™s Pricier Than Ever.โ€ The gist is that in the first nine months of 2025 โ€” including the most recent four months since Mamdani won the mayoral primary โ€” leasing activity for Manhattan offices has been very strong, indeed outpacing the rest of the country. A few excerpts:

New York is setting the pace for the rest of the country. Manhattan leasing activity in 2025 has now surpassed its 2018-2019 levels. Nationwide, office leasing remains about 11% below its prepandemic average, according to CBRE.  Competition for prime space in Manhattan has grown so intense that many large tenants have to choose between a great location or a top-quality building.  โ€œIn most other cities, landlords only wish they had that kind of problem,โ€ said Michael Slattery, CBREโ€™s research director for the New York region.

Examples of businesses driving the activity:

Accounting and consulting company Deloitte signed one of the biggest leases this year when it rented nearly three-quarters of a new Hudson Yards skyscraper under development on Manhattanโ€™s West Side. Technology, media and advertising companies also gobbled up space this year, extending a recent run. Amazon.com, for one, expanded its New York presence by purchasing a Fifth Avenue building and leasing an additional 330,000 square feet.

As a notable instance of business tycoons proceeding as if New York will be retaining its status as a capital of capitalism, consider the giant hedge fund Citadel, headed by Ken Griffin. Citadel occupies hundreds of thousands of square feet of Midtown office space โ€” and is planning a major expansion. Along with several partners, Citadel is developing a huge new office building at 350 Park Avenue (corner of 51st Street). Here is a rendering:

Aerial rendering of a modern skyscraper being developed at 350 Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, surrounded by other buildings and under a clear blue sky.

This development just sought and received a final go-ahead from the City Council on September 25, well after Mamdani had secured the Democratic Party nomination for Mayor. The New York YIMBY website on September 29 reported on the status of this development. Excerpts:

On September 25, the New York City Council unanimously approved the construction of 350 Park Avenue, a nearly 1,600-foot supertall office skyscraper in Midtown East, Manhattan. Designed by Foster + Partners and developed by Vornado Realty Trust, Rudin, and Ken Griffin, the massive 62-story structure will yield 1.8 million square feet of Class A office space with a capacity of 6,000 employees. Griffinโ€™s companies Citadel and Citadel Securities will serve as the anchor tenants, occupying at least 850,000 square feet. The 53,000-square-foot property is located between East 51st and 52nd Streets.

1600 feet tall is way taller than the Empire State Building (1250 feet tall). YIMBY puts the overall cost of the development at $4.5 billion.

Citadel was originally founded in Chicago. In 2022 it moved its headquarters to Miami. It continues to downsize in Chicago, but to expand greatly in New York as well as Miami.

Hereโ€™s another Wall Street Journal piece from April reporting on some other big companies that are expanding in New York:

Tech companies such as Meta Platforms, Amazon and Alphabetโ€™s Google helped spark a boom in the Manhattan office market in the years before the pandemic. . . . Now, that demand is recovering as companies have insisted that more workers return to the office. Vacancy rates, which touched record highs during the earlier years of the pandemic, have been falling in Manhattan and other U.S. business districts.

There is a notable pattern: All of these big companies have their headquarters outside of New York. In other words, the top executives, the actual billionaires, have organized things so that they do not pay New York State or City income taxes. They have big offices in New York to recruit top young talent in the areas of finance and technology.

Are the companies expanding in New York making a mistake in assuming that Mamdani will do only a limited amount of damage? I donโ€™t have a great crystal ball, but I will note that we did have, for two terms, a far left Mayor named Bill de Blasio, who served from 2014 to 2021. De Blasio promised a very similar collection of policies to Mamdani, including rent freezes and raising the City income tax on millionaires, not to mention promising somehow to end the problem of income inequality. With some exceptions that are still with us, de Blasio was never able to implement the policies he sought. Most notably, he never got the income tax increase he wanted, nor anything addressing income inequality in any meaningful way (Iโ€™m not sure what that would have been.). In 2020, during the George Floyd panic, de Blasio announced that he would cut the Police Department budget by about $1 billion; but only a fraction of that happened, and the cut was restored by subsequent Mayor Adams. And then in 2022 de Blasio passed into the sunset as a largely ineffectual buffoon.

Meanwhile, the state-wide elections for offices like Governor and Attorney General are only a year away. Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik looks to be a strong candidate for Governor. In 2022, Republican Lee Zeldin lost the race for Governor to Kathy Hochul by only about 6 points. Also in 2022, Republican Michael Henry lost to Letitia James in the AG race by only about 9 points. James continues to make a fool of herself on a daily basis, and now stands indicted by the Justice Department on charges that look real, if relatively minor. Henry is running again. In other words, there is a very good shot of Republicans taking over the state offices a year from now, and the election of Mamdani could even enhance that probability.

We also have the strong likelihood that the so-called โ€œclimateโ€ mandates will fail within the next four years, perhaps spectacularly.

So yes, these are crazy times. But the bet that most of Mamdaniโ€™s promises are not real is not really a stupid bet.

US President Trump blocked global shipping carbon tax plan, delays vote by a year

The United States won its last-ditch effort to block an international carbon tax on the shipping industry, delaying a vote on the proposal by one full year.

Large cargo ship loaded with containers in a port, with a smaller tugboat assisting and another ship visible in the background.

The United States won itsย last-ditch effortย to block anย international carbon taxย on the shipping industry, delaying a vote on the proposal by one full year. The Washington Examiner has the story.

Byย Callie Patteson

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz confirmed Friday morning that the Trump administration forced the International Maritime Organization to delay voting on whether to adopt the measure, also known as the net-zero framework.

โ€œHuge push by @SecRubio and the State Dept team,โ€ Waltz said in a post to X.

โ€œStrong diplomacy that put American business and consumers first WON THE DAY over an ideological carbon tax from the UN and EU,โ€ he continued.

The motion to delay the vote on the measure was reportedly put forward by Singapore on Friday and called to a vote by Saudi Arabia, which was aligned with the Trump administration in its efforts to block the framework.

Fifty-seven countries voted in favor of delaying the adoption vote, and 49 voted against. There were 21 abstentions.

Delaying the vote comes as a shock, as many member states of the IMO, a London-based specialized agency within the U.N., were confident there were enough votes to adopt the measure as international maritime law.

Earlier in the week, the IMO also confirmed to the Washington Examiner that a drafting group has been established to prepare the final text of the revised MARPOL Annex VI 2025, regulations within the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, that would include the framework.

The Trump administration has attempted to block the adoption of theย international carbon taxย for months, with President Donald Trumpย escalatingย pressure Thursday afternoon.

โ€œI am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax,โ€ Trump wrote in a post to Truth Social.

โ€œThe United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form.โ€

The net-zero framework needed a two-thirds majority vote in favor to pass as an amendment to the maritime treaty.

Members of the IMO initially voted to approve the framework and carbon tax in April, agreeing to charge shipping companies for greenhouse gas emissions released by their vessels if they exceed a certain threshold.

Read the full storyย here.

Debunking the fossil-fuel subsidy myth

Ask any economist and theyโ€™ll tell you that subsidies are an inefficient use of government resources. If a government wants to incentivize innovation and new technologies, its funds can be put to much better uses, like research and development. And once a subsidy is in place, itโ€™s virtually impossible to repeal: the subsidized industry grows to rely on it, gets stronger financially, and gains political clout.

A close-up image of a hundred-dollar bill featuring Benjamin Franklin, with an overlay of an oil pump jack silhouette, suggesting a connection between money and the fossil fuel industry.

From CFACT

By Brian Potts

Note that this article on an important topic was first published in 2016.  We republish it in response to an inquiry from one of our social media correspondents:

Ask any economist and theyโ€™ll tell you that subsidies are an inefficient use of government resources. If a government wants to incentivize innovation and new technologies, its funds can be put to much better uses, like research and development. And once a subsidy is in place, itโ€™s virtually impossible to repeal: the subsidized industry grows to rely on it, gets stronger financially, and gains political clout.

In the energy industry, there are lots of subsidies. But none are more attacked by environmental groups and the press than the governmentโ€™s handouts to the fossil-fuel industry.

These attacks, however, are overblown and misinformed.

The federal government subsidizes the fossil-fuel industry to the tune of about $3 to $5 billion dollars per year (the exact amount depends on whose numbers you believe). This might sound like a lot. But the subsidies the federal government is simultaneously forcing the fossil-fuel industry to pay to its competitors, mainly biofuel producers, hugely dwarf the aid that the industry receives.

According to the apolitical U.S. Energy Information Agency, the federal government spends about $3.5 billion per year subsidizing the coal, petroleum and natural gas industries. By contrast, the Feds dole out about $15 billion every year in subsidies to the renewable energy industry (mainly to support new wind and solar projects) and $20 billion per year for agricultural subsidies and insurance.

Donโ€™t believe the EIAโ€™s subsidy calculations for the fossil-fuel industry? Last year, in an effort to eliminate all direct fossil-fuel subsidies, President Obama asked his U.S. Treasury Department to figure out how much the industry gets in subsidies from fossil-fuel specific tax code provisions. The answer, according to the Treasury: $4.7 billion.

Regardless of which number you believe, these fossil-fuel subsidies pale in comparison to the $15 to $20 billion the fossil-fuel industry has to shell out to its competitors and the agricultural sector every year because of the Environmental Protection Agencyโ€™s renewable fuel standards program.

Each year the EPA requires gasoline and diesel refiners to blend a certain amount of renewable fuel (mainly corn ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel) into our fuel supply before sending it to gas pumps. When this program was originally adopted back in 2005, the percentage of renewable fuel required to be blended into gasoline and diesel fuel was fairly low.

But under the Clean Air Act, the percentage has ramped up every year (this year it will be about 10%), and the percentage is slated to continue to go up until at least 2022. By forcing the petroleum industry to blend so much renewable fuel every year, the EPAโ€™s program is impacting a huge transfer of wealth from petroleum companies to renewable fuel producers and the corn and soybean farmers providing those producers with the inputs necessary to make their renewable fuel.

In other words, on the whole, the fossil-fuel industry in this country isnโ€™t being subsidized; itโ€™s being forced to subsidize others.

From an environmental perspective, you might think this is a good thing.  Itโ€™s not.

Since 2005, the science behind the climate and other environmental benefits from using biofuels has mostly eroded. As John DeCicco, a professor at the University of Michigan with a Ph.D. from Princeton, told Congress earlier this year: โ€œfrom its inception, the (renewable fuel standard) has increased rather than decreased the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere compared to petroleum fuels such as gasoline.โ€ The reason, at least in part, is that the huge transfer of wealth caused by the renewable fuel standard has caused farmers to clear cut forests and prairie (which are better carbon sinks), and replace them with corn and soybean crops.

Still, the debate about repealing fossil-fuel subsidies seems to get much more attention than ending the EPAโ€™s costly renewable fuel program. In August, Gilbert Metcalf, an economics professor at Tufts University, released a study looking at what would happen if the U.S. stopped giving tax breaks to companies for producing oil and gas. He found that removing such fossil-fuel subsidies would have a very modest impact on global oil prices (a less than one percent increase), but would dampen domestic oil and gas production by 4 to 5 percent and would increase domestic natural gas prices by 7 to 10 percent.

Such significant domestic impacts could be avoided, however, if we scrapped the much more expensive renewable fuel standard program in addition to (or even in lieu of) repealing the nationโ€™s fossil-fuel subsidies. Doing so would improve the environment, while simultaneously boosting domestic oil and gas production and eliminating a huge, unnecessary drag on our economy.

This article originally appeared in 2016 at Real Clear Energy

Wildfires Below Average Last Yearโ€“Met Office Says Global Warming Has Made Themย Worse!

The Met Office are no longer a serious, scientific organisation, but a political one:

A modern, concrete building featuring large symbols, such as a thermometer and globe, with several uniformed figures standing outside.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Cunningham

 The Met Office are no longer a serious, scientific organisation, but a political one:

A fiery sky illuminated by wildfires, with silhouetted trees in the foreground. The scene conveys the intensity and destruction of extreme heatwaves and droughts.

The latest State of Wildfire report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.

Human-driven climate change made wildfires in parts of South America and Southern California many times larger and more destructive, according to an annual assessment by international experts.

According to climate models, the Los Angeles wildfires in January were twice as likely and 25 times larger, in terms of burned area, in the current climate than they would have been in a world with no human-caused global warming. It also made last yearโ€™s burning in the Pantanal-Chiquitano region in South America 35 times larger, while also driving record-breaking fires in the Amazon and Congo.

However, it is still too early to tell how much climate change contributed to the impacts of the wildfires.

The new report warns that more severe heatwaves and droughts are making extreme wildfires more frequent and intense worldwide, resulting in increasing threats to peopleโ€™s lives โ€“ through fire and polluting smoke โ€“ as well as property, economies and the environment.

Key findings from this yearโ€™s report include:

  • Warming increased burning in Pantanal, Chiquitano and Amazon, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2
  • Climate change increased likelihood of Southern Californiaโ€™s deadly fires by at least 2-3 times
  • Experts urge nations to significantly cut emissions at COP30 and adapt to a hotter, more fire-prone world

UKCEH land surface modeller Dr Douglas Kelley, who co-led this yearโ€™s report, said: โ€œOur annual reports are building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires. Without human-driven warming, many of these wildfires, in Pantanal and Southern California, for example, would not have been on an extreme scale.โ€ 

Report co-lead Dr Matt Jones of the University of East Anglia said: โ€œWe urge world leaders at COP30 to make bold commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions rapidly this decade. This is the single most powerful contribution that most developed nations can make to avoiding the worst impacts of extreme wildfires on living and future generations.โ€

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/state-of-wildfire-report-2025

Note the highly political call for rapid cuts in GHGs. It is not the job of the Met Office to canvass for political action.

The report, in any event, is full of contradictions and provides no data to back up their claims are wildfires are more frequent and intense, never mind that climate change has caused anything.

The only โ€œevidenceโ€ offered is from fraudulent weather attribution computer models. If the changes were as drastic as the Met Office pretend, surely there would be ample data to quantify it, instead of relying on make-believe models?

On the contrary, the opposite seems to be the case โ€“ the evidence we have shows there is no upward trend.

Indeed, the report itself admits that last yearโ€™s fire season was below average and was the 8th lowest since 2002!

Global summary of the 2024-2025 fire season, indicating that at least 3.7 million square kilometers burned, which is 9% below the average of previous fire seasons and ranks as the 8th lowest since 2002.

Take the US, for instance, which has been highlighted in the report for the California fires. Some years are up, others are down, but there is no underlying trend whatsoever:

Bar graph showing US wildfire acreage from 2001 to 2024, with varying levels of acreage burned each year.
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires

And, of course, if we go back further in time, wildfires were much worse. In those days, they were more or less allowed to burn themselves out, which in turn got rid of all the dead wood and undergrowth which acts as fuel to make forest fires more intense.

Then systematic fire suppression began, which drastically curtailed the size of fires, but also allowed the accumulation of that very same dead wood and undergrowth.

Laughably, the report even blames the California fires on wet weather, which the BBC tried to do at the time:

Swain referred to heavy rain during the two winters prior to 2024/25, which I have marked on the rainfall graph below for the Los Angeles Division:

Line graph showing precipitation levels for California's Climate Division 6 from 1896 to 2025, with notable peaks and troughs indicating variations in rainfall over the years.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/divisional/time-series/0406/pcp/6/3/1895-2025

Clearly those two years were not unusual at all. Californiaโ€™s climate regularly swings from one extreme to the other.

Equally 2024/25 was not unusually dry either, ranking only the 13th driest since 1895.

Whatever caused the Palisade fire, it was not excessive rain or drought.

Then thereโ€™s Europe:

Graph showing wildfire area in the Mediterranean region (Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and Greece) from 1980 to 2024, with a red line indicating the average area of 434,000 hectares.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/23/eu-wildfire-trends-2024/

A declining trend.

Overall, the Met Office study dishonestly cherry picks the regions where fire activity was above normal last year, blames it on climate change, but just ignores all the other places.

And then proceeds to claim โ€œThe latest State of Wildfire report is building unequivocal evidence of how climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of extreme wildfires.โ€

And they call it science!

Americaโ€™s Energy Dilemma: A Consumerโ€™s Guide to Common Sense

When Americans walk into a store, they instinctively know how to make a choice. They weigh quality, price, reliability, and long-term value. Whether itโ€™s a car, a home appliance, or a pair of boots, the decision isnโ€™t ideologicalโ€”itโ€™s practical. People want something that works, lasts, and doesnโ€™t cost a fortune to maintain.ย 
Energy, though invisible and abstract, should be treated the same way.

Aerial view of a snow-covered residential area with houses and a road, illuminated by the soft glow of a sunset.

From Watts Up With That?

By Terry L. Headley

The Great American Paradox 

When Americans walk into a store, they instinctively know how to make a choice. They weigh quality, price, reliability, and long-term value. Whether itโ€™s a car, a home appliance, or a pair of boots, the decision isnโ€™t ideologicalโ€”itโ€™s practical. People want something that works, lasts, and doesnโ€™t cost a fortune to maintain. 

Energy, though invisible and abstract, should be treated the same way. Every kilowatt-hour that lights a lamp or powers a furnace comes from a decision about trade-offsโ€”cost, reliability, safety, and sustainability. Yet somewhere along the way, that simple consumer logic was replaced by political fashion and media spin. Americans who would never buy a fragile car or a house built on sand have been persuaded to accept an energy system that depends on the weather. 

If America approached its national energy policy the way a family buys a truckโ€”asking, โ€œWill this get the job done, in every season, under every condition?โ€โ€”the answer would still be coal. Itโ€™s not sentimental nostalgia; itโ€™s arithmetic and common sense. Coal delivers what every smart buyer demands: power when you need it, at a price you can afford, for as long as you need it. 

So letโ€™s walk through that decision step by stepโ€”as if the buyer were America herself, standing on the lot, comparing what works to what merely looks good. 

Step One: Define the Job to Be Done 

When Americans make a purchase, they start with purpose. Whatโ€™s the job? For energy, the job is not to signal virtueโ€”itโ€™s to power a nation. That means energy thatโ€™s available, affordable, and abundant, every hour of every day, no matter the weather. 

Coal still meets that standard better than anything else. It provides true baseload powerโ€”steady, dependable, and always there when needed. In a market filled with fragile experiments, coal is the heavy-duty pickup that starts every morning and hauls every load without complaint. 

Step Two: Compare the Options 

A rational buyer lines up choices and measures performance, price, and durability. 

In plain terms, wind and solar are flashy but fickle. Natural gas is solid but volatile. Nuclear is strong but slow and expensive. Coal remains the workhorseโ€”steady power, stable cost, built in America. 

Step Three: Examine the True Cost 

Consumers donโ€™t stop at sticker price. They look at what it really costs to own something. 

Wind and solar prices ignore hidden costsโ€”batteries, backup plants, and massive transmission lines. A โ€œcheapโ€ solar kilowatt disappears the moment the sun sets. Someone still has to keep the grid running, usually a coal or gas plant on standby. 

Coal doesnโ€™t play that game. Itโ€™s simple: mine, burn, generate. It doesnโ€™t rely on weather forecasts, lithium mines, or taxpayer subsidies. Its price reflects its realityโ€”and its reliability. 

Step Four: Assess Risk 

No one buys a car that only works when itโ€™s sunny. Yet thatโ€™s the gamble of an energy system built on wind and solar. When the Texas grid froze in 2021, turbines stopped, gas lines froze, and the remaining coal plants carried what load they could. 

Every extreme weather event tells the same story: when everything else fails, coal keeps the lights on. Reliability isnโ€™t a luxuryโ€”itโ€™s survival. 

Step Five: Consider Security of Supply 

Energy independence isnโ€™t a slogan; itโ€™s insurance against manipulation and crisis. 

Solar panels depend on Chinese polysilicon. Wind turbines need Chinese rare earths. Batteries rely on African cobalt and South American lithium. These are fragile, often unethical supply chains. 

Coal is American. We mine it, ship it, and burn it right here. We have centuries of reserves and the expertise to use them. No embargo, no foreign dictator, no supply-chain shock can take that away. 

Thatโ€™s not just energy securityโ€”itโ€™s national security. 

Step Six: Factor in Reliability and Lifespan 

Wind and solar installations wear out quicklyโ€”20 years, give or take, before replacement. Coal plants can last twice as long, often producing โ€œfreeโ€ power once construction debt is paid off. 

Closing them early makes as much sense as junking a paid-off truck to lease a new one that canโ€™t climb a hill. Itโ€™s waste disguised as progress. 

Step Seven: Evaluate the Moral Premium 

Every consumer has values. We pay more for quality, for local goods, for work that supports American families. The same logic applies to energy. 

Coal mining jobs are among the best-paying in the working class. Each one supports several othersโ€”rail, manufacturing, maintenance, retail. The taxes fund schools and hospitals. When you buy a kilowatt from coal, youโ€™re buying from your neighbor. 

Thatโ€™s a moral premium worth paying. 

Step Eight: Check the Warrantyโ€”Resilience 

The best products come with a warrantyโ€”a promise theyโ€™ll stand up under stress. 

A wind farm is software-driven, hackable, and fragile. Solar panels shatter in hurricanes and go dark in snow. Coal plants can restart manually and operate through almost anything. 

In an unstable world, resilience isnโ€™t a feature. Itโ€™s the whole point. 

Step Nine: Consider the Trendโ€”Donโ€™t Be Fooled by Fashion 

Every generation has its fads. The green energy craze is one of them. Itโ€™s driven by subsidies, not economics. Take away the tax credits and mandates, and the market collapses overnight. 

Coal, despite decades of political and regulatory assault, still competes on its own merit. Thatโ€™s not fashionโ€”thatโ€™s proof. 

The Final Analogy 

Imagine America as a family standing in a dealership lot. 

The salesman points to a shiny electric sports carโ€”quiet, green, and โ€œgovernment-approved.โ€ It looks good but canโ€™t handle a snowstorm or haul a load of firewood. Next to it sits a natural gas SUVโ€”fine in fair weather but unreliable when prices spike or the lines freeze. 

And then thereโ€™s the old-school diesel truckโ€”coal. Itโ€™s rugged, paid off, and built to last a lifetime. It starts every morning, no matter the weather, and carries the whole family safely home. 

A practical buyer doesnโ€™t choose fashion over function, or image over survival. America shouldnโ€™t either. 

Coal isnโ€™t nostalgiaโ€”itโ€™s common sense. Itโ€™s the engine that built this country and the only one strong enough to keep it running. 

When judged by the same standards every American uses to make a purchaseโ€”cost, reliability, security, longevity, and valueโ€”coal remains the only logical choice. 

Because a nation that forgets how to power itself wonโ€™t stay powerful for long. 

Terry L. Headley, MBA, MA, for the American Coal Council. 

The Hedley Company is an energy communications and research firm that helps clients tell the truth about powerโ€”clearly, credibly, and fast. We specialize in coal, natural gas, and grid reliability, producing message frameworks, data-driven reports, investor and policy decks, and earned-media programs that move opinion and outcomes. Founded by T. L. Headleyโ€”former communications director for the West Virginia Coal Association and the American Coal Councilโ€”the firm blends newsroom discipline with industry know-how, using county-level data, RTO dynamics, and policy analysis to inform decisions. From crisis response to long-form research, The Hedley Company turns facts into strategy and strategy into wins. Based in Ona, West Virginia.  

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

Clean Power For 87ย Hours!

In which universe is this something to brag about?
I would be more concerned by the other 6417 hours when we did need gas power!

A row of offshore wind turbines in the ocean under a clear blue sky.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Joe Public

In which universe is this something to brag about?

Screenshot of a news article from Carbon Brief discussing Great Britain's achievement of running on 100% clean power for 87 hours in 2025.

Electricity demand on the island of Great Britain has been fully covered by the output of clean-energy sources for a record 87 hours in 2025 to date, new Carbon Brief analysis shows.

This is up from just 2.5 hours in 2021 and 64.5 hours in all of 2024, ahead of the governmentโ€™s clean-power target for 2030.

The target aims for 95% of the electricity generated in the country in 2030 to come from low-carbon sources, as well as for 100% of national demand to be met without fossil fuels.

I would be more concerned by the other 6417 hours when we did need gas power!

And even then, their โ€œclean powerโ€ included nuclear and burning trees, neither of which anybody would regard as โ€œcleanโ€.

A chart showing the cleaner electricity mix in Great Britain for 2025, detailing the contributions of wind, nuclear, solar, biomass, and hydro power sources used to meet 100% clean energy demand.
Graph showing clean energy meeting 100% of Great Britain's electricity demand for four hours on 12 September, with fossil fuels and net imports indicated.

But as Carbon Brief admit, we still had plenty of gas power running for the whole of that time, most likely to provide inertia. Although non-fossil fuel power just about covered demand, the surplus power was exported.

Carbon Brief are not a reliable source of information, they are simply a climate change lobby group, funded by the far-left European Climate Foundation.

Funding information from the Carbon Brief website, detailing support from the European Climate Foundation for the financial year 2022.