Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Eco Smugs sitting in their top-of-the-range electric vehicles are probably unaware, or perhaps donโt want to know, about the unfolding ecological tragedy in the virgin tropical rainforests of Indonesia. Higher EV ranges have been achieved by adding nickel to lithium-ion batteries, an addition that has also boosted the performance of someย public transport busesย in cities like London. As with many green โadvancesโ, the ecological cost is horrendous.
Eco Smugs sitting in their top-of-the-range electric vehicles are probably unaware, or perhaps donโt want to know, about the unfolding ecological tragedy in the virgin tropical rainforests of Indonesia. Higher EV ranges have been achieved by adding nickel to lithium-ion batteries, an addition that has also boosted the performance of some public transport buses in cities like London. As with many green โadvancesโ, the ecological cost is horrendous. Over half the worldโs supply of nickel is located in Indonesia and much of that is to be found just a few feet below unspoilt rainforests. Cue massive deforestation and extensive rollout of smelters and even EV battery factories.
Most of Indonesiaโs nickel reserves are on the islands of Sulawesi and Halmahera. Nickel deposits are typically found in rock between 20 and 50 feet below the surface and are easily extracted by open-cast mining. Many of the mining concessions are in forest lands, often secondary growths but with significant burials under the older, undisturbed mature rainforests. Undisturbed until now. In 2020, Indonesia banned the export of nickel ore, which led to the introduction of local metal processing facilities. Significant destruction has occurred in the rainforests, converting habitats into open-pit mines and industrial parks. If carbon dioxide is your thing, it might be an idea to consider all the stored CO2 released to make so-called eco, planet-saving car batteries. Not to mention the loss and possible extinction of endemic species and the local wastewater contamination running into the sea and harming nearby coral reefs.
Satellite data along with local reports suggest that primary forest loss is heading for 100,000 hectares. Another half a million hectares are feared at immediate risk due to booming demand and the 2020 nickel ore export ban. Local forest canopies are often dominated by dipterocarp trees and they are prized for their resin and hardwood. Selective logging targeting the most valuable specimens is followed by full clearance for the pits and the smelters. Ultramafic soils, formed in places where tectonic forces bring up rocks from the Earthโs mantle, host unique flora which have adapted to the local habitat.
Human existence requires the exploitation of the Earthโs natural resources. Land to grow food, ground to dig for essential metals and space to build shelter. But there is something terribly wrong about digging up some of the last remaining virgin rainforests solely to help power a vehicle that it is claimed will stop the climate changing. Moreover, many of the people promoting these new machines argue that they are more eco-friendly than a petrol vehicle โ a car powered by a natural hydrocarbon easily extracted by putting a temporary pipe into the ground.
Of course the hypocrisy around EVs does not stop there. There are not enough children in the Congo to mine all the cobalt required, while the country of China that is now taking over EV manufacture is hardly a shining beacon of virtue when it comes to human rights and employment practices.
But all of this is a price the Eco Smugs seem prepared to pay. High-subsidy, low-inertia onshore wind turbines kill millions of bats and birds every year, with large gliding raptors such as eagles at particular risk. The countryside is swept of insects with every turn of the blades, helping to produce local ecological disaster areas. Once productive food-growing land is turned into dead zones by subsidy-seeking solar panels. In the UK, the offshore turbines are a menace to national security, with the Defence Department recently forced to spend ยฃ1.5 billion on a hoped-for cure for unreliable radar readings caused by the Doppler effect. Off the east coast of America, the whales can relax a little as massive industrial offshore wind parks are curtailed. Deafened by sonic noise and harassed by heavy industrial shipping, record numbers have beached on the shore over the last decade. Nobody looks, nobody cares and the mainstream media largely ignores the ecological scandal.
Nickel is a relatively expensive metal and its use in cheaper EVs is limited. But nickel-manganese-cobalt (NMC) batteries offer higher energy density and help increase range. NMCs are currently the norm for premium EVs and they effectively prioritise performance over other available alternatives. Jaguar Land Roverโs supply chain investments have targeted nickel as essential for batteries that will power its new โReimagineโ all-electric offerings for 2026. Undoubtedly aware of possible PR sourcing difficulties, the company says it employs inspectors to ensure responsible practices in securing supplies of materials such as nickel and cobalt.
There may be a genuine effort on the part of publicity-conscious companies like JLR to avoid being primarily responsible for digging up the rainforest. But an overall increase in demand that is fed by higher-performance batteries will inevitably lead to the ghastly sight of virgin rainforest being felled to assuage the โrange-anxietyโ felt by rich Net Zero-inspired motorists.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Scepticโs Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
This article has a close look at the progress of Australiaโs electrical grid transition to weather dependent generating sources.ย The analysis mostly focuses on South Australia and its leading role in this transition.ย Rooftop solar has lagged grid scale wind in the transition but rooftops are rapidly gaining market share and are bound to make grid scale wind and solar obsolete before they recover their construction costs.
This article has a close look at the progress of Australiaโs electrical grid transition to weather dependent generating sources. The analysis mostly focuses on South Australia and its leading role in this transition. Rooftop solar has lagged grid scale wind in the transition but rooftops are rapidly gaining market share and are bound to make grid scale wind and solar obsolete before they recover their construction costs.
The high unit cost of grid sourced electricity is driving the de-industrialisation of the economy with many large consumers now gone and the remainder on government welfare that cannot continue indefinitely.
Rooftops are observed to have an unrivalled advantage over grid scale weather dependent sources by having captured demand. Every rooftop solar installation reduces the opportunity for intermittent grid generation to earn income.
Introduction
Australia is making a pitch to host the United Nations Conference of Parties in 2026. This will shine a light on Australiaโs claim to be the global super power of โrenewable energyโ. Fittingly, Adelaide is the proposed host city and is the State Capital of South Australia (SA). SA is one of the regions connected to the so-called national grid that rightly claims to be the largest interconnected grid in the world. SA is a relatively small component of the National Electricity Market (NEM) with a peak demand up to 4GW.
For the year to mid October 2025, SA generated 72% of its electricity from weather dependent generators (WDGs); both wind and solar. There are no hydroelectric generators in South Australia.
Rooftop Solar
Australia is unique amongst G20 nations in having the best solar resource combined with mostly mild winters and warm to hot summers.ย This means sunlight is truly ubiquitous all year over the mainland States while the high population centres do not experience snowfall.ย SA is well placed to make use of the solar resource as indicated in Chart 1, which is takenย from OpenNemย for a 24-hour period ending 10pm 15 October 2025 where the bright yellow bathtub shape is the rooftop solar component and the darker yellow is the utility scale solar.
Table 1 sets out details of the colour coding in Chart 1 and should be viewed together.
Some finer points of the chart that should be noticed is the dotted line that indicates zero on the scale. SA is able to import and export to Victoria. So when the internal generation exceeds the internal demand the export is shown as a negative value on the chart. It is apparent that on this day, rooftop solar was supplying the entire internal demand of the State around midday. Utility scale WDGs were able to produce some output by exporting. The purple region above the dotted line indicates imported generation.
The bottom line of the table indicates all WDGs contributed 68.2% of the electrical energy for the day. The internal generation Netted 47GWh; just under 2GW average generating power. It is important to note the values for โCurtailmentโ. Utility solar curtailed 2.5GWh while generating 3GWh. Wind curtailed 0.9GWh while generating 9.9GWh. On the day, the combined output of the utility WDGs was well under the generation from rooftop solar of 14.6GWh.
Tuesday 15 October 2025 was a good day for rooftop solar in SA with it supplying all the demand in the State at lunchtime. On weekends now, rooftop solar is being exported on a sunny day and both utility scale WDGs fully curtailed between 11am and 2pm. Through the peak of summer, air-conditioners will increase the demand and there may not be sufficient rooftop output yet to meet the midday demand. Similarly, the reduced rooftop output in winter means other sources take a larger share of the demand. So the winter generating curve still has some resemblance to the โduck curveโ but early summer generation now looks like a gaping chasm on weekends and a bathtub on week days.
SA Electricity Generation Transition
Chart 2 expands the time frame for the SA Region to this century in quarterly periods.
At the beginning of the century, SA used gas and coal to generate electricity.ย Coal ended in Q2 2016.ย Wind first appeared in Q3 2007 and rooftops were measurable by Q3 2016 by their lunchtime impact.ย Utility scale solar was producing by Q1 2018.ย The peak quarterly wholesale generation of 3886GWh occurred in Q3 2010 and declined to 3231GWh in Q3 2025.ย The last decade for just the WDGs is shown in Chart 3.
Chart 3 includes 2nd order polynomial trend lines that give some indication where each source is heading. There is 792MW of installed utility scale solar that has levelled off around 250GWh for quarterly volume corresponding to capacity factor of 14.4%. Wind generation is showing a reduced rate of climb and is unlikely to sustain above 1800GWh over a year; corresponding to a capacity factor of 29.7% for the 2763MW of installed capacity. Rooftops have an accelerating trend and Q4 2025 may be the first time they overtake utility scale wind for the quarter on total energy sourced.
Wholesale Market Price & Revenue
Chart 4 provides the quarterly average wholesale price in SA for utility scale wind and solar.
The price for utility scale wind and solar track each other reasonably well. The trend is reasonably flat apart from peaks caused by technical issues and the slump during the Covid shutdown. Since 2023, there is a clear annual price cycle. The utility solar price collapsed in Q3 2024 as rooftops removed demand. Grid wind prices were somewhat higher but still exhibit the annual cycle caused by the increasing impact of rooftop solar.
Chart 5 combines the generator output and market price to give the quarterly wholesale revenue for the SA utility WDGs.
Apart from the Q2 2022 period when the SA-Vic interconnector failed, the quarterly revenue peaked in Q1 2019 at AUD146M for wind generators and AUD22M for utility solar. In 2024, annual wholesale revenue for utility solar was AUD42M and for wind AUD413M.
SA Retail Electricity Price
Given the growth in utility scale generation in SA and the stabilising of the wholesale price in the region, it would be expected that retail price would be reflecting these trends. Chart 6 using data from โVinniesโ shows a different story:
Over the past decade, as WDGs have grown to dominate the electricity market share in SA, the retail price of electricity has continued on an upward trend. July 2025 price averaged 52c/kWh, including the service charge, based on annual consumption of for a 6000kWh.
There are a number of reasons for this retail price trend.
The SA region has invested in synchronous condensers to add inertia and voltage stability to the grid that add to transmission costs.
The grid has expanded to cater for numerous geographical sources of generation.
The distribution system had to be upgraded to cater for high reverse energy flows.ย This continues.
So-called โrenewable energyโ attracts a premium termed large scale generating certificates (LGCs).ย LGC price has fallen this year down to AUD11/MWh but were AUD83/MWh in 2016 with a gradual downward trend.ย The retailers are required to pay for LGCs from WDGs so the cost is in addition to the wholesale price. The higher the proportion of โrenewable energyโ the higher the subsidy.
The cost of stability services from battery and gas generators that remain connected is not included in the wholesale price but is in the retail price.
The market manager has rapidly rising costs due to the complex nature of managing such a complex market that needs to be in balance every second of every day with increasing exposure to common weather events.ย Weather fronts are major risks to grid stability.
The volume in the wholesale market is declining so higher costs being applied to declining volume creates a double hit for unit prices.
There are still essential generators burning gas in SA and lignite fuelled generation imported from Victoria.ย There has been no reduction in the peak demand but they have much reduced volume to recover their high standby costs so charge high unit price when they can to stay profitable.
Consumers become Prosumers
SA is a very good example of de-industrialisation in the making. Manufacturing of Mitsubishi motor vehicles ended in SA in 2008. Manufacture of Holden motor vehicles ended in 2016. The Port Pirie lead smelter and Whyalla iron blast furnace are both on government welfare because the high cost of electricity makes them uneconomic.
Faced with high prices for grid sourced electricity, 50% of SA households and many businesses are now making their own. This means the remaining consumers bear the already high, yet increasing, cost of the grid and are also on government welfare to help with the burden.
Aldi Australia makes a claim that their stores are run on 100% โrenewableโ energy. Image 1 is an example of one of their stores showing the rooftop solar array.
Their stores certainly have large solar arrays but they are connected to the grid and there are no battery installations of a size needed to run the stores for a day or so without grid connection. So they may produce 100% of their energy on average but are still reliant on fossil fuels for essential electricity.
Aldi is also marketing household rooftop systems now. They offer a 6.6kW solar array and 20kWh LFP battery combination for AUD9,000 installed including government rebate. Such a system installed anywhere on mainland Australia on a north facing, pitched roof would supply 15kWh/day for 350 days per year. That amounts to 105,000kWh at a unit cost of 8.5c/kWh over a 20 year life. The panels would require cleaning of lichen and leaf litter every year or so but otherwise maintenance free.
Discussion
Australiaโs electrical grid is in transition one rooftop and household battery at a time. It is most apparent in SA but the rest of the country is catching up. Chart 7 shows the trend in generating sources across the entire NEM:
It is clear that the fossil fuelled generators are in decline and WDGs are on the increase. Not quite so apparent is that the wholesale market demand peaked in Q3 2008 at 54.9TWh. It was down to 52.6TWh in Q3 2025. So the whole NEM suffers the same price vortex as SA with steeply rising costs distributed across reducing demand.
Australia no longer manufactures motor vehicles. All of Australiaโs remaining smelters are on government welfare.
Despite the increasing grid cost of electricity, the average household cost for electricity has not increased in the past 10 years. This is because four million households have invested in rooftop solar and get most of their energy at no ongoing cost. The Federal Government battery rebate from July 1st 2025 has spurred Australian households to install almost 1GWh of household batteries in the first 3 months. September 2025 recorded the highest monthly installation of rooftop solar capacity so far.
Conclusions
Grid scale WDGs are now stranded assets. That is clearly evident for utility scale solar in SA that competes directly with rooftop solar. On most weekends now there is zero opportunity for utility scale solar to generate revenue. On Saturday 11 October the SA wholesale price was negative from 2am to 6pm โ the entire generating window for utility scale solar. Wind has more opportunity to earn revenue but that is also being eroded. In 2024, the $800M invested in SA utility scale solar produced revenue of $43M in the wholesale market. In 2024, the $5bn invested in SA wind produced $413M revenue in the wholesale market. This is insufficient revenue to justify the capital expenditure.
The two potential positives on the horizon for the grid scale WDGs are Snowy 2 and the higher capacity interconnector to NSW but they only delay the inevitable demise of non-essential grid generators.
Rooftop solar has a number of distinct advantages:
There is no requirement for land acquisition.
There is no requirement for Environmental approval.
There is no requirement for FirstPeopleโs approval.
No new transmission or distribution assets are required.
Most importantly โ rooftop investors have captive demand.
Australian households are voting with their money and the various governmentsโ offers of other peopleโs money to make their own electricity. They are removing their demand from the grid. Household batteries improve internal utilisation of solar energy and further reduce the opportunity for utility scale WDGs to generate revenue. The grid has upward spiralling costs with falling wholesale demand thereby accelerating its economic demise. All the remaining large electricity consumers are on welfare and their closure is imminent. Each departure reduces the opportunity for grid scale WDGs to earn.
This was predicted a decade ago and should now be clearly evident to any observer. The existing grid developed through economy of scale. The solar panels on a roof are the same as those used in any utility solar plant. The basic cells used in a household batteries are the same cell used in grid scale batteries. Wind in Australia goes missing for a couple of weeks each year, usually in June, so would require enormous storage to make it an on-demand source of energy.
It will not be easy to rebuild Australiaโs industrial base but Australia has the lowest cost fuel in the world and only the climate scam is in the way of making good decisions regarding energy.
Over the next decade, rooftops will force the demise of grid scale WDGs. They are not renewable or sustainable. They are stranded assets with no future.
The cost of grid electricity could be reduced immediately by requiring all bidding generators to be dispatchable and removing the mandated retail theft. That means the existing coal plants would run at 100% capacity so their unit price could come down dramatically while still being profitable and the margin between retail and wholesale price would reduce.
In the long run, rooftop solar and low cost battery storage may be an economic option for suburban Australia. The suburban grid could still have economic value by bleeding in energy when the batteries are getting low while sharing output from neighbourhood solar and battery assets.
The Author
Richard Willoughby is a retired electrical engineer having worked in the Australian mining and mineral processing industry for 30 years with roles in large scale operations, corporate R&D and mine development. During this period, Richard represented Australiaโs large electricity consumers on the first systems development group for the National grid. A further ten years was spent in the global insurance industry as an engineering risk consultant where he developed an enduring interest in natural catastrophes and changing climate.
Alarmists claim that, due to anthropogenic climate change (AGW), the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening to the point that itโs on the verge ofย collapsing. Itโs claimed this will lead to abrupt cooling and extreme weather in the North Atlantic region.
Alarmists claim that, due to anthropogenic climate change (AGW), the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is weakening to the point that itโs on the verge of collapsing. Itโs claimed this will lead to abrupt cooling and extreme weather in the North Atlantic region.
But the author of a new study points out that changes in sea level trends are a useful proxy for detecting AMOC variability over time.
Interestingly, from one side of the Atlantic to the other, or, specifically, from the coasts of New York to the coasts of France, mean sea level rise has been stable, not accelerating, since 1960.
This affirms the stability of the AMOC and contradicts the narrative that the AMOC is on the cusp of collapse.
โโฆa negligible difference in absolute sea level rise between these locations [The Battery, New York, and Brest, France] reinforces the stability of the AMOC within the period 1960 to 2024. These findings challenge claims of AMOC weakening.โ
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that โwe have 12 years to save the Earthโ, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Millions of people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that โwe have 12 years to save the Earthโ, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed.ย Are you aware that almost 2,000 of the worldโs leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no CO2-induced climate emergency?ย These signatories have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made C02-induced climate change.
2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at United Nations Environment, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.
3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim OโBrien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available at: https://www.icsf.ie/lecture-series
The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration โThere is No Climate Emergencyโ (see https://clintel.org/ireland/).
4. The reality is that the climate has always been changing, the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and CO2 emissions (and methane from livestock, such as cows) are not dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to CO2 emissions (and also methane from cows) has no scientific basis. It appears to me the UN narrative is yet another example of fake science being used to drive an ulterior agenda, see also the book Godless Fake Science.
In truth I am against โrealโ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of โrealโ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. See also this article. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.
5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following
There is no [CO2-induced] climate emergencyโฆ The geological archive reveals that Earthโs climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the worldโs leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:
โdeeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world โ that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.โ โ Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
Dr Nils-Axel Mรถrner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change. He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: โThis is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerousโ and expressed shock โthat the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda propsโ. He states:
โsolar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2โฆ something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesisโฆ It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.
I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialistโฆ I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paperโฆ I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrongโฆThe scientific truth is on the side of the scepticsโฆ I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated.
In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrongโฆ Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession โ they live on it.โฆ I suspect that behind-the-scenes promotersโฆ have an ulterior motiveโฆ Itโs a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling peopleโ โ Dr Nils-Axel Mรถrner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm
Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank is Dr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts: โOur models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real worldโ. Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is โuntrustworthyโ and cannot be relied on and that: โGlobal mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy dataโ.
Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, see Endnote [i]. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:
โThe established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years agoโฆ
the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/yearโฆ Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally โ the trend is flatโฆ Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decadeโฆ worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!โ
In a lecture titled The imaginary climate crisis โ how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:
โin the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2โฆ the narrative is absurdโฆ it gives governments the power to control the energy sectorโฆ for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteriaโฆ Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.โ
โCO2โฆ itโs not a pollutantโฆ itโs the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesisโฆ if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.โ โ Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:
โthe whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake scienceโฆ of course climate change is real itโs been happening since the beginning of time, but itโs not dangerous and itโs not caused by peopleโฆ climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying itโs a crisis are on perpetual government grants.
I was one of the (Greenpeace) foundersโฆ by the mid-80sโฆ we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fearโฆ you donโt have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the citiesโฆโ โ Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: โMore CO2 benefits the Earthโ.
7. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world
The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that โ they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised โsystemโ. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.
โThe computer models are making systematic dramatic errorsโฆ they are all parametrisedโฆ fudgedโฆ the models really donโt workโ โ Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science
Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [i]. He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielkeโs analysis as follows:
โThe four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate โcrisis scenarioโ outcome)โฆ There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that โno likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this reportโ. The likelihood is considered low they admit โ This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.
These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCsโ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like thatโฆ The whole process is seriously flawedโฆ Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the โbusiness as usualโ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at allโฆ climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.โ โ Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado
8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing โnet-zeroโ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.
Transcending the Clima…Keenan, Mr Mark Christ…Best Price: $12.59Buy New $19.50(as of 12:36 UTC – Details)The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would seemingly disable the current fossil-fuel-based mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. Yet the narrative is quite hypocritical as the production of green energy infrastructure, and mining of rare earth metals for batteries for electric vehicles, is, and will most likely continue to be, very fossil-fuel intensive. Globalisation resulted in much of humanity becoming largely dependent on the trans-national industrial economy rather than on traditional more self-sufficient local/regional economies. Therefore, one has to ask where is this all going to lead if the plug is truly pulled on fossil fuels? Almost all of us are seemingly locked into, and have become dependent upon, the current economic paradigm of globalisation. A system rigged by debt-money created from nothing; created and controlled by private mega-banks and behind the scenes money-masters; and which can induce boom, bust, bailout scenarios that detrimentally effect the populace.
It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel driven system. I explore this topic in the books Demonic Economics and the Tricks of the Bankers and Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability
Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food. In Ireland, the deluded greens in government had planned to close the coal-fired power station Moneypoint, in the name of reducing CO2 emissions. However, as the price of electricity increased and the dawn of so-called โgreen energyโ began to evaporate like the Irish morning mist, the government scrapped this plan in 2022, instead deciding to convert the station to an oil-burning facility. The Irish Times newspaper reported:
โWith growing concerns over security of the energy supply in the State, the Government is not in a position to decommission Moneypoint as a fuel-burning station in the near future. It was confirmed by the Irish Government in 2022 that Moneypoint will convert to oil generation from 2023.โ See Endnote [ii]
The so-called โgreen economyโ (for it is not environmentally friendly in reality) and UN Agenda 2030 are resulting in increased energy poverty and decreased energy independence for the masses, while also developing trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. โStop burning coal and wood logs that causes climate change donโt ya knowโ my deluded neighbour informed me last year, having threw out her wood burning stove and installed solar panels. Then a typical winter storm in Ireland last month left many thousands of people without electricity or heating for almost a week, shivering and wishing for a wood burning stove, while their solar panels produced little electricity in winter.
9. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the worldโs energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low โ in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay (1967 โ 2016), former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University, and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Summary
In summary, CO2 reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the worldโs population. However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only. The cult of โmanmade climate changeโ is a media and UN politically-promoted โideologyโ, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.
Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this โdictatorship of wordsโ without even being aware of it. The unpalatable reality is that peopleโs access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.
We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not โpolitically correctโ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our communities and local/regional networks or create a truly resilient thriving society. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.
John Christy: "Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it's rising only 2.5 cm per decade" https://t.co/IKy0XuckYi
Just last year, several oil majors looked to be betting big on biofuels, but some momentum seems to have been lost in project development in recent months. Despite a growing demand for biofuels, as several hard-to-abate industries strive to decarbonise, greater sectoral uncertainty and other challenges have led the rollout of new projects to stall in several parts of the world.ย
Just last year, several oil majors looked to be betting big on biofuels, but some momentum seems to have been lost in project development in recent months. Despite a growing demand for biofuels, as several hard-to-abate industries strive to decarbonise, greater sectoral uncertainty and other challenges have led the rollout of new projects to stall in several parts of the world.
By the end of 2024, several oil majors had increased investments in biofuel development, with a focus on sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). At the time, there were 43 projects expected to be operational by 2030, according to Rystad Energy. Oil and gas firms such as ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, and Shell had all committed to biofuel production, with a production capacity pipeline of 286,000 barrels per day(bpd).
With aviation contributing around 2 percent of greenhouse gas emissions globally, the sector is searching for ways to decarbonise operations, with many airlines introducing SAF targets for 2030 and beyond. SAF production mainly comes from waste and residue, like used cooking oil or organic crops. Although it still emits carbon dioxide, as it is produced using waste, it is considered less polluting throughout its entire lifecycle. The benefit of using SAF is that airlines do not have to invest in new fleets or retrofitting activities, as most aircraft engines can use SAF alongside traditional jet fuel in their existing engines.
While SAF is generally more expensive to produce than conventional jet fuel, several regions of the world have introduced minimum targets on SAF use, which has encouraged an accelerated uptake of the fuel. For example, the European Union requires a minimum of 2 percent of SAF use in aviation by 2025. Biofuels can also be used for other activities, such as in heating and electricity generation, and in fertilisers for food production.
The OECD expects the global use of biofuels to grow by 0.9 percent a year over the next decade, much lower than the 3.3 percent annual growth seen in recent years. The OECD forecasts that biofuel growth will slow in high-income countries due to stagnating fuel demand resulting from electric vehicle adoption and weaker policy support. However, the demand in middle-income countries is expected to offset the slowdown, with biofuel consumption expected to increase by 1.7% annually across these countries, with Brazil, Indonesia, and India driving demand.
As demand eases, some companies are backtracking on their commitment to biofuels. In September, Shell announced it would not be moving ahead with plans to develop a biofuels factoring in the Netherlands. The oil major initially paused work on the project in July following a review that deemed the facility was too expensive and โinsufficiently competitiveโ. The plant in Rotterdam was expected to be one of the biggest in Europe to transform waste into SAF and biodiesel.
This is expected to hinder the European Unionโs target of decarbonising its aviation sector. It also reflects Shellโs recent move away from a net-zero commitment, following the reduction of investment in green energy and cleantech in favour of fossil fuels. Shellโs downstream, renewables and energy solutions president, Machteld de Haan, said of the move, โAs we evaluated market dynamics and the cost of completion, it became clear that the project would be insufficiently competitive to meet our customersโ need for affordable, low carbon products.
Meanwhile, Ashley Kelty, an analyst at Panmure Liberum, said it was โanother nail in the ideological coffin for SAF and biofuelsโ. He added, โIt means that SAF is going to be more expensive, limited in supply and therefore difficult for airlines to justify using.โ Biofuels were expected to be a major part of Shellโs anticipated energy diversification plan, as part of its shift to green. However, the recent move demonstrates its commitment to its fossil fuels business and could signal the beginning of a move away from biofuels across the oil and gas sector.
An August analysis by Reuters showed that out of 165 SAF projects over the past 12 years, only 36 have come to fruition. Among those 36, just 10 projects, or 6 percent of the total, have reported producing commercial volumes of SAF. The analysis found that if all the pending projects announced by airlines reached their maximum potential, it would only add 12 billion gallons of SAF production, or around 10 percent of whatโs needed to achieve the net-zero target. Several airlines have blamed the oil and gas industry for backtracking on its biofuel commitments.
There was great optimism around the future of biofuels in 2024, with a strong project pipeline and several years of production and demand growth. However, as some oil and gas companies backtrack on their commitments to biofuel production and several projects are delayed not yet started, there is greater uncertainty in the sector. The lack of meaningful commitment to biofuels, particularly SAF, could make it more difficult to achieve decarbonisation targets in the coming years.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
Felicity Bradstock
Felicity Bradstock is a freelance writer specialising in Energy and Finance. She has a Masterโs in International Development from the University of Birmingham, UK.
The weaponization of government was a major driver of President Donald Trumpโs historic comeback. From the Department of Justice labeling certain mothers โdomestic terroristsโ to the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) adding individuals unwilling to wear masks to the โno-flyโ list, the Biden administration left no stone unturned.
The weaponization of government was a major driver of President Donald Trumpโs historic comeback. From the Department of Justice labeling certain mothers โdomestic terroristsโ to the Transportation Safety Agency (TSA) adding individuals unwilling to wear masks to the โno-flyโ list, the Biden administration left no stone unturned.
Even energy departments were not off limits. Take the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The FERC is supposed to be accountable to, but independent of, the White House, similar to the Federal Reserve, where President Trump can urge Chair Jerome Powell to lower interest rates but has no direct authority to make it happen.
The independence of FERC ensures that energy and infrastructure decisions are immune from presidential politics, and that is a good thing. Imagine a President Gavin Newsom ordering FERC actions to appease the green fringe of his base.
FERCโs mandate is to ensure the iโs are dotted and the tโs are crossed; that all parties are compliant and all laws and regulations obeyed. That is not what happened during the Biden years.
On Bidenโs first day in office, he nominated Richard Glick as FERC Chairman. Shortly thereafter, FERC became a bottleneck for seemingly perfunctory, non-controversial, energy projects. Glick told Congress in 2022 his decision making was based on โwhether the benefits of the project โ especially increasing access to natural gas โ outweigh its adverse impacts.โ No longer was Glick a compliance officer. He was making value judgments outside of the regulatory guardrails and even above and beyond Congress, which is accountable to the voters who elect them.
It is pure insanity that an energy regulator, presumably an expert in the energy space, would describe increasing access to natural gas as an โadverse impactโ. That is not regulatory oversight but a political vision, and it was no coincidence FERC started playing politics.
In June 2022, TheWall Street Journalbroke the story of Glickโs biweekly meetings with the White House climate office. Suddenly, it all clicked. Team Biden wanted to advance the climate agenda and punish the fossil fuel industry, and FERC became the vehicle to do both. The weaponization of government struck again.
For those who followed the corruption of FERC, and their extraordinary authority to measure the worthiness of energy projects against the nebulous criteria of โclimate change,โ it was not shocking that the Senate Natural Resource Chairman Joe Manchin, a Democrat, blocked his re-nomination. The climate fringe of the Democratic Party was stopped by a moderate who had seen enough. Glickโs interjecting politics into FERC had not only surpassed his bureaucratic authority but had usurped Manchinโs congressional and constitutional authority.
There is reason to be optimistic about FERCโs future. Recently, President Trumpโs nominees cleared Senate confirmation, and the FERC will now be in the hands of the sane. The ALFA Institute, former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthyโs think tank, authored a report on FERC reforms which should simplify and streamline the process and prevent politics from intervening once again. Former Chair Glick treated upgrades and basic maintenance as new projects, beginning the review process at square one. ALFA proposes allowing these infrastructure projects to be approved without years of unnecessary red tape. This would not just drastically expand the supply of energy, but also help ensure basic projects are not hamstrung by the next White House influenced FERC chair pushing an agenda.
The new FERC commissioners, Laura V. Swett and David A. LaCerte, should have no agenda โ not the agenda of the climate industry nor even the fossil fuel industry. FERC should do its jobs, as outlined in their statutes, no more, no less.
Anarchy is not a viable option for America to survive. Government can navigate the complicated waters of our pursuit of happiness. As bad as anarchy, however, is weaponization: when โwe the people,โ through our elected representatives, chart a course only to have a faceless bureaucrat change it based on personal whims or political pressure.
On his first day in office, President Trump rightfully declared an energy emergency. Four years of a weaponized FERC, coupled with untold regulations at the Departments of Interior, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, a trillion dollars in Inflation Reduction Act green spending, not to mention Climate Czar John Kerry flying around the world playing Chicken Little, put our energy industry into a deep hole. We are behind the ball on permitting, production, strategic reserves, all reflected in stubbornly high prices of goods and services. Market stabilization will return with regulatory certainty, and putting FERC in the hands of capable commissioners whose only agenda is doing their jobs is a necessary first step.
The U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum,ย posted a memorandumย back in August calling on the agency toย ensure compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, โto ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities!โ
Wind projects are known to kill eagles, and climate extremists in the Biden admin still greenlit scores of these projects. @Interior is enforcing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities! pic.twitter.com/MFh25QneKw
— Secretary Doug Burgum (@SecretaryBurgum) August 4, 2025
โWind projects are known to kill eagles, and climate extremists in the Biden admin still greenlit scores of these projects. @Interior is enforcing the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities!โ ( โ Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, X)
This is a long overdue threat to major wind projects that have been living a lie. After all, it was the Los Angeles director of the Sierra Club who coined the term โCuisinarts of the Airโ to capture the bird-chopping nature of industrial blades to the most treasured/protected birds of prey.
The โavian mortalityโ problem has a long history. May the new initiative finally (!) get to the bottom of things.
Government Neglect
The Burgum/DOI memorandum is significant given the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to act on the documented killing of Golden and Bald Eagles by industrial wind. The dodge of estimating electrocutions from power poles as a โmitigationโ strategy in this area (see David Wojickโs analysis, below) is unacceptable.
North American Platform Against Windpower (NA-PAW) keenly awaits the new DOI priority. It is well known that the ability to โmitigateโ eagle deaths include a lack of suitable and rigorous testing; incomplete implementation; limited technology; ignored interacting factors; site specific requirements; lack of collaboration. Add: developer-led counting and methodology; use of less bird occupied testing sites; natural flow of natural processes where scavenging replaces/negates counting; massive level obfuscation including reference points to cats and cars and windows.
The actual numbers of kills are completely unknown. ABC (American Bird Conservancy) estimates some years ago (2021 article), 880 bats and 573,000 birds dead. Actual numbers, again years ago, referencing the Spanish Ornithological Society numbers, a valid coordinate to the USA, is between 13 and 31 million annually. Then add electrocution.
In a 2014 study, researchers estimated that 25.5 million birds are killed each year due to collisions with powerlines, and another 5.6 million are killed by electrocutions. Therefore, powerlines built exclusively to connect new wind facilities to the existing energy grid result in additional bird mortalities that should be factored in to the total toll in birds associated with wind energy development.
David Wojick of CFACT (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) has penned several succinct assessments of the problem. โFederal regulators concluded that the golden eagle population cannot survive increased kills from human activity,โ he noted, โand also determined that wind turbines substantially increase eagle deaths.โ
The feds then offered a solution only a bureaucrat could love: Donโt protect the eagles from turbine strikes, but โoffsetโ their deaths by reducing electrocutions from power poles. Government then underestimated the number of power poles that would need to be made โsafeโ by a factor of as much as 241 and failed to save any meaningful number of eagles. See link for full report. See here for executive summary.
Time for Action
NA-PAW expresses the hope that Secretary Burgumโs request to FWS is diligently applied, that no new wind factory permits are allowed; and retroactive closures of non-compliant wind factories are administered post haste.
Non-compliant yardsticks must be rejected. After-the-fact counts of dead birds and bats (in this case protected species, Golden and Bald Eagles) is not nearly enough. The corollary idea that reducing related power pole deaths can in some way โmitigateโ wind turbine deaths is not credible.
NOTE: Mr. Wojick has not had a reply from his numerous emails to FWS.
CONTACTS:
Sherri Lange, CEO North American Platform Against Wind Power, Great Lakes Wind Truth; Vice President Canada, Save the Eagles Internationalโ Advisory Board Member, All About Energy
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues. He specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment. As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning. This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles. Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/ Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojickโs numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies. Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Departmentโs O๏ฌce of Science. He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the sta๏ฌ of the Naval Research Laboratory. He is available for con๏ฌdential consulting, research and writing.
The last two decades should have been a period of accelerating economic development for Africa, South America and much of Asia. Discoveries of abundant oil and gas supplies offered a rescue from poverty, industrial stagnation and poor access to electricity and other basic services.
The last two decades should have been a period of accelerating economic development for Africa, South America and much of Asia. Discoveries of abundant oil and gas supplies offered a rescue from poverty, industrial stagnation and poor access to electricity and other basic services.
Instead, they got a man-made disaster, a deliberate slowdown of growth driven not by geographical disadvantage or domestic inefficiency but by a global campaign to divert affordable fossil fuels from poor nations.
Examples abound. At the United Nationsโ COP26 of 2021, more than 30 governments and a number of public financial institutions committed to the so-called Glasgow Statement, also known as the Clean Energy Transition Partnership. The objective was to end new public finance for fossil fuel projects by the end of 2022 and instead prioritize โgreenโ energy.
The European Investment Bank stopped financing all fossil fuel projects by the end of 2021, affecting billions in planned natural gas infrastructure. Major European pension funds and commercial institutions โ BNP Paribas, Crรฉdit Agricole, Sociรฉtรฉ Gรฉnรฉrale โ reduced or eliminated support for development projects for oil, natural gas and coal, citing targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
The coercion was unequivocal: Pursue fossil fuels and lose access to Western capital. The opposition to hydrocarbons was embraced by Western nonprofit organizations and even by people who had made money from oil.
Just Stop Oil, a malicious anti-fossil fuel outfit, has been bankrolled by the Climate Emergency Fund and Hollywood filmmaker Adam McKay, maker of the alarmist movie Donโt Look Up. The fund draws heavily on contributions from Aileen Getty, heir to the Getty oil fortune, and other wealthy donors.
Rainforest Action Network, Sunrise Movement, Oil Change International, and 350.org are just a handful of so-called non-profit organizations that inject funds into domestic campaigns across the developing world.
Oilwatch Africa, openly provides support to groups working against fossil fuel expansion, offering direct financial incentives to oppose developmental projects. In August, the African Energy Chamber (AEC) explicitly accused “foreign-funded NGOs” of using litigation to block Shell’s offshore exploration in southern Africaโs Orange Basin.
The AEC described these challenges as “disruptive, meritless legal challenges” that threaten energy security, economic growth, and job creation in countries facing high unemployment and reliance on imported energy.
โAfricaโs per capita energy consumption remains among the lowest globally, underscoring the urgent need for infrastructure development and policy reform,โ says the Africa Energy Outlook Report 2026. โAfricaโs average per capita power consumption in 2024 was 500 kilowatt/hours (kWh) per year, compared to the global average of 3,700 kWh. โฆ Similarly, Africa today accounts for less than 5% of global oil product demand despite presenting 18% of the worldโs population.โ
Government budgets in the U.S. and Europe have poured millions into climate initiatives purportedly aimed at โmitigationโ and โresilience.โ Disguised is the redirection of funds into programs meant to deny oil and natural gas development in regions that need it most.
This is deception by opacity of process. Taxpayers and donors believe that they are funding solutions, but the effect is to derail initiatives that would vastly improve the living standards of developing nations. The current U.S. administration has stopped this, for now, by withdrawing funding commitments to climate programs abroad. But a different administration could restore the fraudulence in foreign aid.
Despite the headwind, in 2024, multiple African states pushed forward with fossil fuel development. From Nigeriaโs offshore oil investments to Tanzaniaโs natural gas expansion, leaders prioritized their people’s needs over external pressures. This is a glimpse of the immense potential waiting to be unleashed if only these countries were free of the conditional aid and activist influence that undercuts their energy sovereignty.
Grassroots groups that oppose fossil fuels should be transparent about the sources of their funding and the trade-offs of their positions. If blocking an energy project means a village remains dark or a factory canโt open, such costs must be taken into account.
The truth: Climate policy that ignores the needs of people and contributes to generational poverty is cruel, even when presented with the gloss of environmental virtue.
This commentary was first published byย Townhallย on October 16, 2025.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, 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 bachelorโs in engineering from Anna University, India.
Household energy bills are on course to rise by hundreds of pounds this decade because of ballooning green levies, the countryโs biggest gas and electricity suppliers have warned.
Senior executives from Octopus Energy, British Gas owner Centrica, E.On, EDF and Ovo urged ministers to urgently address levies that pay for net zero-related costs, which they said are one of the main factors driving bills higher.
Speaking to MPs on a Parliamentary committee on Wednesday, Rachel Fletcher, director for regulation at Octopus Energy, said current trends suggest green levies could add around ยฃ300 to a typical householdโs electricity bill by 2030.
Just hours before energy executives spoke to MPs, Mr Miliband claimed the high gas prices were to blame for the UKโs sky-high electricity prices.
But energy bosses warned that net zero levies were becoming so expensive that they threatened to push household bills higher, even if gas and power prices fell dramatically.
Ms Fletcher, of Octopus, said: โIf we continue on the path that weโre on right now, in all likelihood, electricity prices for a typical customer are going to be 20pc higher in four or five yearsโ time than they are now.
โAnd thatโs even if wholesale prices halve. So we completely support the decarbonisation of electricity that will begin to bring wholesale prices down, but the non-commodity costs are adding about ยฃ300 of pressure onto a typical bill.โ
Iโm not sure why the Telegraph is surprised by this. Despite Milibandโs persistent lies that it is all just โspeculationโ, the National Energy System Operator, NESO, themselves told us bills would rise substantially, when they presented him with their Clean Power 2030 report last November.
This was the report that looked into the feasibility of Labourโs plan to fully decarbonise the electricity system by 2030. Below is the relevant table from that report:
Ignore their claim that generation costs will fall โ Iโll come to that next.
But they do say that all the other, non-generation costs would rise by ยฃ25/MWh, which is equivalent to a 10% increase on bills or ยฃ7.5 billion a year.
Much of this extra cost will go to paying constraint payments to wind and solar farms, paying them to switch off when there is too much wind and solar power on the grid.
Currently these payments only go to remote wind farms in Scotland, because the transmission capacity is not big enough there to bring the power south. However, under Labourโs plan to triple wind and solar power, there will be many days when there is more electricity generated than the country can consume.
NESO calculate that a fifth of all electricity produced will have to be either constrained or exported at a huge loss to the Continent. The latter is unlikely because the Europeans will also have the same problem of too much wind.
On top of constraint payments, tens of billions will need to be spent building storage capacity and expanding the grid to bring power from Scotland and the North Sea to the parts of the country where the demand is.
Returning to NESOโs claim that generation costs will fall, this was merely deceitful smoke and mirrors. They have assumed that higher carbon taxes will push up the cost of gas power, which in turn appears to make renewable energy cheaper:
Excluding carbon taxes, the current cost of gas power is around ยฃ50/MWh, not the ยฃ123/MWh they claim. Given their own admission that wind and solar cost between ยฃ71 and ยฃ83/MWh, it is clear that generation costs will increase, not fall. (Their figure of ยฃ83/MWh is already out of date, as Miliband has offered ยฃ117.MWh for new offshore wind projects in the latest subsidy auction round.)
Milibandโs spokesman ignored these very real issues raised and instead commented:
โWholesale gas costs for households remain 75pc higher than they were before Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, and the main reason energy bills remain high.
โThe only way to bring down energy bills for good is by making Britain a clean energy superpower, which will get the UK off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel prices and onto clean, homegrown power that we control.โ
Gas prices are certainly 75% higher than a decade ago, but general inflation has also risen by a similar amount. In real terms, gas costs no more now than it used to. Green levies are the reason why electricity prices are so high, not the price of gas.
As Claire Coutinho neatly described in her conference speech last week, Ed Miliband wants to take out a fixed-rate mortgage at 11% interest, because he does not want a variable one at 4%!
You must be logged in to post a comment.