A Cautionary Solar Tale: Billions Wasted Thanks to a Rush to Market

Back in the late 1970s there was a popular wine commercial with the film director Orson Welles reminding us that “some things can’t be rushed,” and concluding with what became a famous catchphrase: “We will sell no wine before its time.”

View of the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility with mountains in the background, located in the Mojave Desert.

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

A solar power facility with a tall tower and mirrors reflecting sunlight, set against a backdrop of mountains in a desert landscape.

This article was orginally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Back in the late 1970s there was a popular wine commercial with the film director Orson Welles reminding us that “some things can’t be rushed,” and concluding with what became a famous catchphrase: “We will sell no wine before its time.”

One of the biggest yet least discussed problems with the race to establish the solar industry before the subsidies run out is that the product has arguably been rushed to market before it is perfected. The construction is getting ahead of the expertise – meaning that billions of dollars could be invested in solar devices that are soon to become outdated.

The haste to establish solar fields across more than a million acres of U.S. farmland – along with countless more installations around the world – has seemed to come with relatively little long-term planning as to deployment, functionality with existing electric grids and eventual decommissioning and disposal.

Modern solar devices are relatively new creations, in many cases still being studied and upgraded. And yet, giant arrays of solar panels mounted on posts – replacing acres of corn, wheat and soybean fields – are being established as though the technology is finalized and the form complete.

A stark example of the folly of rushing solar products to market was recently provided. The Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert, built from 2010-14 at a cost of $2.2 billion – including $1.6 billion in three federal loan guarantees from the Obama Energy Department – is now “set to close in 2026 after failing to efficiently generate solar energy,” according to a recent story in the New York Post.

“The facility’s 5 square miles of desert were covered with some 173,500 heliostats, adjusted via computer to catch maximum rays,” the story noted. “The computer-controlled mirrors can reflect light from the sun at temperatures that can reach 1,000 degrees in part of the installment.”

“The idea was that you could use the sun to produce a heat source,” alternative energy consultant Edward Smeloff told the Post. “The mirrors reflect heat from the sun up to a receiver, which is mounted on top of the tower. That heats a fluid. It creates steam [that spins] a conventional steam turbine. It is complicated.”

But as the technology rapidly evolved, the Ivanpah facility “couldn’t compete with newer and less expensive forms of creating solar power,” the Post reported. The result? The reckless hurry to “go green” once again ended up with a project deep in the red.

Modern solar technology is so emergent that it’s a long way from being perfected. For instance, new research at the Autonomous University of Querétaroin in Mexico is studying “a new thin-film solar cell design capable of converting more than twice the standard percentage of sunlight into usable electricity,” according to Metal Tech News.

The technology is designed to utilize “only Earth-abundant, non-toxic materials in a breakthrough that could help reshape the solar industry” and have applications “both environmentally friendly and suitable for large-scale manufacturing.”

“Higher efficiency means a solar panel will produce more electricity for a given amount of sunlight, which can be crucial in applications with limited available space or where maximizing energy output is essential,” the story noted.

Another innovation involves “bifacial” solar panels, which operate by “capturing sunlight from both the front and back of the module,” allowing them to “utilize reflected sunlight from various surfaces, such as the ground, water, or nearby structures, resulting in increased electricity yield,” according to an industry report.

Left unsaid is that such breakthroughs would mean that many existing solar installations are operating with outdated technology generating less electricity than would have been likely if patience, continued research and a more complete product had been brought to market.

Yes, technology is always evolving and improvements are constantly being made on everything from automobiles to microwave ovens to cell phones to laptop computers. But in few areas – none to the extent to which taxpayers have propped up solar– have billions of dollars in subsidies been allocated to rush such a still-evolving product into production, installation and implementation.

Even more concerning is the fact that there is no need for such urgency. Our traditional, affordable hydrocarbons, especially natural gas, are sufficiently abundant to last at least through the remainder of this century. With more time and continued research, solar energy might someday be deployed more efficiently and cost-effectively, possibly requiring a fraction of the footprint currently required. Such foresight could preserve more farmland for agricultural use and minimize potential brownfield damage when solar fields reach their decommissioning stage.

The solar industry should only launch validated, fully realized products that are economically viable without government subsidies. As Steven Milloy, senior fellow at the Energy & Environmental Legal Institute, said in regard to the Ivanpah solar debacle, “No green project relying on taxpayer subsidies has ever made any economic or environmental sense.”

The “renewables” sector should learn a lesson from the wine-making industry and promise to install no solar before its time.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Empowerment Alliance.

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

Solid Arctic Ice Recovery October 2025

Overall ice extent was 534k km2 below average or 6%.  Surpluses appear on the Eurasian shelf seas of Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian, while sizeable deficits are shown elsewhere on the Atlantic side, especially Kara, Baffin Bay, Canadian Archipelago and Central Arctic.

A polar bear and a cub walking across a snowy landscape with mountains in the background.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

Map showing the analyzed sea ice extent in the Arctic on October 1, 2025, highlighting extensive ice coverage.

The animation shows the rapid growth of Arctic ice extent during October 2025, from day 274 to day 304, yesterday.  For all of the fuss over the September minimum, little is said about Arctic ice growing 3M km2, that’s 3 Wadhams in one month!.  Look on the left (Russian side) at the complete closing of the Northern Sea Route for shipping.

The graph below shows 2025 compared to the 19-year average (2006 to 2024 inclusive), to SII (Sea Ice Index) and some notable years.

Graph showing Arctic ice extents in million km2 from day 274 to day 304 in October 2025, comparing data from 2025 to the 19-year averages and notable years.

This year October added 2.6M km2 from end of September compared to an average October increase of 3.4M km2.  The first two weeks were above average, before the refreezing rate slowed down ending in a deficit of ~0.5M km2.  In other terms the end of October ice extents were four days behind the average, according to MASIE.  SII started the same, but tracked lower in the second half of October.

A cartoon depicting a polar bear standing next to an 'Arctic Ice' sign, commenting humorously on ice production, while a person bundled in winter clothing holds a sign reading 'THE EARTH HAS A FEVER' and shows concern.

The table below shows the distribution of ice in the Arctic Ocean basins.

Region2025304Day 304 Ave.2025-Ave.20073042025-2007
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere78676218401977-5343568175072-307451
 (1) Beaufort_Sea975681937777379041038126-62444
 (2) Chukchi_Sea683493466318217175242685440809
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea1087032952325134707835071251961
 (4) Laptev_Sea849204848501703887789-38585
 (5) Kara_Sea137515478870-341355311960-174445
 (6) Barents_Sea146681088-7962152823-51356
 (7) Greenland_Sea351374418343-66969443559-92184
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence128777247258-118481289374-160596
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago568663740190-171526817220-248557
 (10) Hudson_Bay860966501-5789248845-40236
 (11) Central_Arctic30519773153485-1015083206345.33-154368

Overall ice extent was 534k km2 below average or 6%.  Surpluses appear on the Eurasian shelf seas of Beaufort, Chukchi and East Siberian, while sizeable deficits are shown elsewhere on the Atlantic side, especially Kara, Baffin Bay, Canadian Archipelago and Central Arctic.

Map of the Arctic region showing various seas, countries, and the North Pole, with labeled borders and geographic features.

Illustration by Eleanor Lutz shows Earth’s seasonal climate changes. If played in full screen, the four corners present views from top, bottom and sides. It is a visual representation of scientific datasets measuring ice and snow extents.

Illustration of the Earth showing continents and oceans with detailed geographical features and labels.

Climate Skeptic Naomi Seibt Petitions President Trump for Political Asylum

“… In 2024, I found out that I had been spied on by German intelligence for years. Simultaneously, I keep receiving death threats from Antifa …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Krishna Gans, Ron Long – “… In 2024, I found out that I had been spied on by German intelligence for years. Simultaneously, I keep receiving death threats from Antifa …”

‘Anti-Greta’ conservative activist seeks asylum in US over Antifa death threats — with support of Elon Musk

By  Emily Crane
Published Oct. 29, 2025, 7:07 a.m. ET

A young German activist dubbed the “anti-Greta” is seeking asylum in the United States after being hit with a wave of Antifa death threats over her political views and free speech championing.

Naomi Seibt, 25, recently filed the petition for political asylum — in a move she says was supported by Elon Musk — amid fears she will be killed or be thrown in prison if she returns to her native country.

…

“In 2024, I found out that I had been spied on by German intelligence for years. Simultaneously, I keep receiving death threats from Antifa,” she said.

“I went to the German police, and they told me that they can’t do anything about it as long as I have not actually been raped or killed.”

…Read more: https://nypost.com/2025/10/29/world-news/naomi-seibt-seeks-asylum-in-us-over-antifa-death-threats-with-support-of-elon-musk/

I once saw Naomi speak in person at a Heartland conference, she’s passionate and committed to the causes she supports.

Tweet from Naomi Seibt.

Naomi isn’t the only European or British person who has accused authorities of abuse of power;

Sir Keir Starmer ‘responsible’ if anything happens to Nigel Farage, claims Reform UK policy chief

Zia Yusuf, Reform UK’s head of policy, told Sky News that the prime minister has “embarked on a campaign with his cabinet to incite violence” against Nigel Farage.

Wednesday 1 October 2025 12:23, UK

Reform UK has accused Sir Keir Starmer of “inciting violence” against Nigel Farage in his speech to the Labour Party conference on Tuesday, and said the prime minister will be “responsible” if anything happens to him.

Speaking to Sky News Breakfast, the party’s policy chief said the prime minister “knows he cannot beat Nigel at the ballot box”, so has instead tried to “demonise him”.

…

The prime minister also said the country must “go into that battle armed, not just with words and condemnation, but with action”.

…Read more: https://news.sky.com/story/sir-keir-starmer-responsible-if-anything-happens-to-nigel-farage-claims-reform-uk-policy-chief-13442106

President Trump was targeted by violent rhetoric in the leadup to the 2024 election, which may have inspired the multiple assassination attempts. Charlie Kirk was assassinated by a crazy who may have been radicalised by online haters. Nigel Farage has accused UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer of using violent rhetoric, exposing Farage to the risk of assassination.

Naomi Seibt also has a significant profile. I believe Naomi when she suggests German authorities would not lose any sleep if she was murdered by Antifa or Last Generation extremists, or any of the alphabet soup of green radicals which currently infest Europe. I believe her when she says she is at risk of being murdered. Let’s hope her asylum application is processed quickly.

This city bought 300 Chinese electric buses — but China can turn them off at will

Some cities have gone all-in on their dedication to renewable energy and electric public transportation but discovering that a jurisdiction does not actually control its own public property likely was not part of the idea.

A Yutong electric bus displayed against a red background with a faint Chinese flag design.

Investigators made the discovery comparing Chinese-built versus European-built buses.

By Andrew Chapados

Acity had a rude awakening when it tested its electric buses for security flaws. The Blaze Media has the story.

Some cities have gone all-in on their dedication to renewable energy and electric public transportation but discovering that a jurisdiction does not actually control its own public property likely was not part of the idea.

This turned out to be exactly the case when Ruter — the public transportation authority for Oslo, Norway — decided to run tests on its new Chinese electric buses.

Approximately 300 e-buses from Chinese company Yutong made their way to Norway earlier this year, with outlet China Buses calling it a “core breakthrough” in Chinese brands’ global reach.

Yutong offers at least 15 different types of electric buses ranging from 60- to 120-passenger capacity.

As reported by Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten on Tuesday, Ruter conducted secret testing on some of its electric buses over the summer. It decided to look into one bus from a European manufacturer, as well as another from Yutong, to address cybersecurity risks.

The test results were shocking.

Investigators discovered that the Chinese-built buses could be controlled remotely from their homeland, unlike the European vehicles.

Ruter reported that the Chinese can access software updates, diagnostics, and battery systems remotely, and, “In theory, the bus could therefore be stopped or rendered unusable by the manufacturer.”

The details were described by Arild Tjomsland, who helped conduct the tests. Tjomsland is a special adviser at the University of South-Eastern Norway, according to Turkish website AA.

“The Chinese bus can be stopped, turned off, or receive updates that can destroy the technology that the bus needs to operate normally,” Tjomsland reportedly said. He additionally noted that while the buses could not be steered remotely, they could still be shut down and used as leverage by bad actors.

Pravda Norway described the situation as the Chinese government essentially being able to decommission the buses at any time.

Read the full story here.

With Wind and Solar More Is Less

With all the talk about needing to dramatically increase power supplies to meet the growing demand from data centers, as well as for anticipated electric vehicle adoption and other electrification efforts, it’s time to highlight one glaring reality of filling that demand with wind and solar—the reality of diminishing returns.

A snowy landscape featuring wind turbines in the background and solar panels partially covered with snow.

From Science Matters

By Ron Clutz

A cartoon scene featuring characters discussing a graph labeled 'Diminishing Returns' next to a wind turbine and a smiling solar panel character. One character is speaking to another through a window, while a group of children watches from the outside.

At their Energy Bad Boys website Mitch Rolling and Isaac Orr published More is Less with Wind and Solar.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Capacity Values of Wind and Solar Plummet as Penetration Increases

With all the talk about needing to dramatically increase power supplies to meet the growing demand from data centers, as well as for anticipated electric vehicle adoption and other electrification efforts, it’s time to highlight one glaring reality of filling that demand with wind and solar—the reality of diminishing returns.

As in: the more intermittent capacity you add, the less capacity value you get from it. When it comes to wind and solar, more is less.

How it Works

Electric grids and utilities across the country assign reliability ratings to wind and solar resources—called capacity values—and these values diminish to almost zero as the system adds more wind and solar.

This reality is lost on—or intentionally obfuscated by—many wind and solar advocates who like to brag about current high capacity values for wind and solar without mentioning the fact that these values plummet as you add more wind and solar to the grid.

A cartoon illustration comparing old energy sources with new renewable energy, showing a power station in the first panel labeled 'Old Energy', a newer energy setup with wind turbines in the second labeled 'New Energy', and a depiction of the absence of energy in the third panel labeled 'No Energy', with a crossed-out power station, all under the title 'Greening the Land'.

What Are Capacity Values?

The term “capacity value” is defined by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) as “the contribution of a power plant to reliably meeting demand. Capacity value is the contribution that a plant makes toward the planning reserve margin…”

Basically, capacity values are percentages of total installed capacity for each energy source that electric grids believe they can reliably count on to meet demand. It reflects the idea that while every energy source has a maximum capacity that it can reach under ideal conditions, not every energy source can reliably perform at these ratings at any given time and when needed.

Limitations of current capacity value methods

Current methodologies for calculating wind and solar capacity values have several limitations that need to be considered when referencing them as reliability metrics.

The first limitation is that they are dependent on existing resources already on the grid. This means that if the generation makeup of the grid changes dramatically, as is happening on power systems across the country, this will have a significant negative impact on the capacity values of wind and solar.

Furthermore, they are also dependent on current load profiles, which are also anticipated to change in major ways with the emergence of data center load growth.

Finally, many capacity values are based on average performance, and not during the highest stress hours for maintaining system reliability, such as peak demand or net peak demand (demand minus wind and solar generation). As a result, capacity values may not assess the reliability of wind and solar when they are needed most, which can lead to an overreliance on them for meeting peak and net peak demand.

Graph comparing net demand for electricity on May 27, 2018, showing a 'Duck Curve,' and April 16, 2023, illustrating a 'Canyon Curve,' with data points representing demand minus wind and solar.

Wind and solar capacity values plummet as the system adds more

Now that the basics are out of the way, let’s discuss the reality that many wind and solar advocates avoid: that every megawatt of wind and solar added to the system is less reliable than the one before it.

Wind and solar capacity values fall as more of these resources are added to the grid because their output patterns are often correlated—the sun sets over an entire continent or concentrated wind turbines experience a wind drought—and they are non-dispatchable. As a result, adding more of the same variable resource reaches a point where the resource does not meaningfully contribute to reliability.

Referring back to the methods above, this means that the more wind and solar you add, the less the load can increase on the system, or the less perfect capacity can be removed, thus increasing the denominator of the equation at a higher rate than the numerator.

A cartoon depicting a speaker at a podium addressing an audience, surrounded by large dominoes lined up in a row, with the caption emphasizing uncertainty about a blackout but affirming that the system functioned as intended.

This is reflected by diminishing capacity values for wind and solar in several major regional transmission operators (RTOs) in the country, which we detail below.

Map of Diminishing Capacity Values for Major RTOs

Map showing diminishing capacity values for wind and solar energy across various Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) in the United States, highlighting percentage changes in capacity values from current levels to future projections.

For a summary comparison, the map above shows the current capacity values of wind and solar in major RTOs across the country and how they are all expected to decline in the future as more are added to the system.

Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)

In almost every season for wind and solar capacity values plummet and reach as low as .4 percent for solar in winter and 8.6 percent for wind in fall by 2043. The one exception to this is wind in the summer months, which actually increases from 8 percent in 2025/26 to 11.5 percent in 2030 before falling again to 8.9 percent by 2043. Still not a great reliability rating compared to coal, gas, hydro, and nuclear, which range from 64 percent to 95 percent in every single season.

In its 2024 Regional Resource Assessment, MISO explains that even though wind and solar will make up the vast majority of installed capacity in the future, reliable/accredited capacity will still be made up of primarily thermal resources.

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland (PJM)

PJM shows a similar story. While onshore wind and offshore wind begin at 41 percent and 68 percent, respectively, in the 2027/28 planning year, these resources drop to 19 percent and 26 percent by 2035/36.  Solar already starts at a low capacity value, dropping from 7—9 percent in 2027/28 to 6—7 percent by 2035/36. PJM explains:

-The ratings for the two solar classes remain stable at low values during the entire period due to the high level of winter risk

-The ratings for the two wind classes decrease significantly due to a gradual shift in winter historical performance patterns driving the winter risk in the model (as shown in the above tables)

Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)

ERCOT shows a similar effect as more wind and solar are added to the system, as the same trend can be seen in the following charts.  As you can see, as more solar is added to the grid, the ELCCs drop to the 0—2 percent range, even with significant amounts of wind capacity on the grid.  Similarly, as more wind is added to the ERCOT system, wind ELCCs drop into the 5—10 percent range.

We hear a lot about the complementary nature of wind and solar generation in ERCOT. While this is true to some extent, these results show that even this has its limits when relying on large amounts of wind and solar capacity for meeting demand because complementary generation won’t always be the case, and there will be times when both resources perform poorly at the same time.

Southwest Power Pool (SPP)

For Southwest Power Pool, solar values are fairly high at the moment, ranging from 55 percent to 74 percent, because it has very few solar resources on the grid, while wind is much lower, ranging from 19 percent to 26 percent, because it is already saturated with wind resources.

Conclusion

The trend is simple enough to catch—the more wind and solar are added, the less valuable every additional MW becomes to the grid. The New York ISO (NYISO) makes the case clear in its 2023-2042 System & Resource Outlook report:

One complex challenge that needs to be considered beyond 2040 is the relative ineffectiveness of new solar and wind resources to contribute during periods of reliability risk after a significant amount of capacity has been built.

Line graph illustrating the diminishing capacity values of offshore wind, land-based wind, and utility-scale solar (PV) as installed capacity increases, with capacity values decreasing from 40% to below 5%.

This is an important reality to remember when wind and solar advocates try to present intermittent resources as reliable energy sources that are able to meet the power demand needs of the future.

The fact is that not only are wind and solar already intermittent and unreliable,
but they have diminishing returns as you add more of them.

As usual, we end with the recommendation of not only keeping our existing thermal fleet in operation for as long as possible, because they are often the most affordable and reliable power plants on the system, but also bringing back recently retired facilities and building new ones on top of it.

A cartoon depicting a classroom with a teacher explaining wind energy calculations on a blackboard, showing that 1 wind turbine at 0 meters/second equals 0 watts, and posing a question about 100 turbines under the same conditions. Students exhibit various reactions, including disbelief and confusion.

Surge in House Fires Caused by Solar Panels Sparks Concern Over Miliband’s Rooftop Installation Drive

A surge in house fires caused by solar panels and their batteries is sparking safety concerns over Ed Miliband’s plan for millions more rooftop installations.

A house engulfed in flames, with smoke billowing from the roof, where solar panels are installed. Firefighters are on the scene, battling the blaze.

The Daily Sceptic

By Will Jones

A surge in house fires caused by solar panels and their batteries is sparking safety concerns over Ed Miliband’s plan for millions more rooftop installations. The Telegraph has the story.

UK fire services faced a blaze involving a solar panel once every two days in 2024, according to data gathered by insurance company QBE, marking a 60% increase in the past two years.

QBE canvassed data from across the UK’s fire services to see how many blazes were caused by solar installations.

It also found fires were rising faster than the rate of installations, suggesting a rise in the number of solar panels could not explain the increase in incidents alone.

Adrian Simmonds, a senior QBE risk manager, said: “Solar is essential to the UK’s clean energy transition but the rapid pace of deployment is raising risk concerns.

“Our analysis shows fires involving solar panels have risen at twice the rate of new installations over the past two years. Safe solar panel installation and maintenance are essential to reducing fires.”

The findings follow a series of disastrous fires linked to solar installations that are thought to have been either faulty or badly maintained.

Earlier this year, a blaze caused by rooftop solar panels forced the evacuation of pregnant women and babies from St Michael’s maternity hospital in Bristol.

Another rooftop solar panel fire, in Church Crookham, Hampshire, damaged three flats in 2022.

Mr Miliband is pushing to accelerate UK solar capacity from 18 gigawatts now to as much as 85 gigawatts by 2035, a nearly fivefold increase.

Some of this expansion will be in the form of ground-mounted panels in the giant solar farms that are replacing farmland across counties like Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Devon and Cornwall.

However, Mr Miliband’s recent Solar Roadmap also calls for rooftop panels to be fitted on millions more homes in addition to the 1.5 million already equipped. It also proposes minimising planning requirements, which can incorporate safety regulations.

QBE’s data showed that there were 107 fires linked to solar panels in 2022 when the UK had about 1.3 million solar panels installed. By 2024, by which point 1.7 million panels were installed, the number of fires had risen to 171.

A large fire burning on the rooftop of a building, with thick black smoke rising into the sky.

Worth reading in full.

Bill Gates, 893 Companies Ditch Climate Initiative…Call For “Return to Economic Rationality”

Nearly 900 companies—including dozens of large international corporations—have quietly withdrawn from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), reports Blackout News here.

A scenic landscape with hills and a bright sun in the background, overlaid with the text 'carbon dioxide and a warming climate change are no problem' in bold yellow letters.

From No Trick Zone

By P Gosselin

A man with glasses and a suit is gesturing and expressing a thoughtful demeanor, with the word 'Nevermind' prominently overlaid on the image.

Nearly 900 companies—including dozens of large international corporations—have quietly withdrawn from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), reports Blackout News here.

The move is being touted as an “overdue return to economic common sense.”

A tall industrial smokestack rising above a factory complex, surrounded by pipes and set against a blue sky with fluffy white clouds.
Symbol image created by Grok AI. 

The SBTi requires its members to set scientifically validated climate targets, essentially aligning their emissions goals with international standards.

The recent exodus of 893 firms signals a growing discontent. According to the reporting, many companies are questioning the practical feasibility of the initiative’s stringent requirements. The core argument?

Political climate policies that ignore technical and financial limitations end up jeopardizing long-term economic viability and weakening global competitiveness.

ENTIRE ARTICLE AT BLACKOUT NEWS

The message to policymakers is clear: excessive regulations often translate directly into higher operating costs, stalled investments, and declining market competitiveness. For many corporations, their commitment to the SBTi began to feel like “symbolic politics” rather than a sustainable business strategy. The withdrawal is therefore a strategic move—a shift back toward focusing on operational stability and profitability as the bedrock for any meaningful long-term investment.

Great Britain, the USA, and China have seen the highest number of companies ending their participation.

The hundreds of corporate withdrawals mark a pivot toward economic realism and suggests that self-determined, pragmatic strategies are replacing politically mandated ones, asserting that a credible, long-term environmental policy must first respect economic strength.

Bill Gates calls off “humanity’s demise”

Bill Gates’s recently called for a “strategic pivot” in climate change, shifting the world’s primary focus from near-term emissions goals and “doomsday” scenarios to improving human welfare, fighting poverty, and preventing disease in the world’s poorest countries.

He laid out this perspective in a recent memo titled “Three tough truths about climate”. Gates argues that the central metric for global efforts should be improving lives and that climate change, will not lead to “humanity’s demise,” and that a “doomsday outlook” is diverting limited resources from interventions that would have the greatest immediate impact on human suffering.

He also stressed that climate and health efforts often compete for funding in national budgets. 

He gave an example of this pragmatic view by stating he would choose to: “let the temperature go up 0.1 degree to get rid of malaria” if forced to choose between the two.

Aussie Climate Council Tries to Explain Why Abandoning Net Zero is a Problem

And tacitly admits people would not choose green energy solutions of their own free will.

Logo of the Climate Council featuring a circular design in orange and pink with the text 'CLIMATE COUNCIL' in bold black letters.

From Watts Up With That?

By Eric Worrall

And tacitly admits people would not choose green energy solutions of their own free will.

October 29, 2025
CONSEQUENCES OF ABANDONING NET ZERO

By Climate Council

The Liberal-National Coalition is meeting this week to discuss its climate change policy, with abandoning Australia’s foundational climate change target – net zero climate pollution by 2050 – reportedly on the cards.

This Briefing investigates the consequences for Australia and the world were Australia to take this course of action.

K E Y F I N D I N G S

1. Abandoning net zero and Australia’s other climate targets could increase Australia’s climate pollution by 6.3 billion tonnes more over the next 25 years compared to current targets. That’s equivalent to the annual climate pollution of 3.2 billion Australian cars.
You mean people wouldn’t choose “cheaper” green technology of their own free will?

2. Abandoning net zero is aligned with global temperature rise well above 3°C. Australia would face a future of relentless disasters and economic upheaval:

  • 4 times the number of severe and extreme heatwave days <= even if true, cheaper energy means people can afford to use their air conditioners
  • 1.5 million Australians exposed to coastal flooding by 2050, and 3 million people by 2090. <= build some sea walls
  • Double the number of extreme fire days <= Then improve forest management, to reduce the fire risk. More burnoffs. Cut more fire breaks.
  • Vast regions becoming uninsurable <= Stop building in flood zones, or build some flood defences

3. Reneging on our climate commitments would damage Australia’s global standing and strain ties with Pacific nations that expect us to do more – not less – on climate change. <= Who cares if some corrupt Pacific Island kleptocrats complain about missing out on climate handouts?

4. Abandoning net zero would be an enormous risk to realising the broad benefits of the global clean energy transition, deterring investment in renewables and green exports. <= I thought the green transition was inevitable

…Read more: https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Climate-Council-Briefing-29.10.2025-Consequences-of-Abandoning-Net-Zero-.pdf

If this is the worst set of consequences the climate council can think of, to abandoning the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars on Net Zero, our descendants are going to wonder how we could ever be so foolish as to fall for the climate scam.

Boiler tax to rise to £100 as Miliband pushes heat pumps

Ed Miliband has announced an increase in the “boiler tax,” which will add an estimated £100 to the cost of replacing the appliances.

A man in a suit walking past two heat pump units outside a building with a gravel base and greenery.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Cunningham

Headline from the Telegraph discussing an increase in boiler tax to £100 as Miliband advocates for heat pumps.

Ed Miliband has announced an increase in the “boiler tax,” which will add an estimated £100 to the cost of replacing the appliances.

The Government confirmed on Friday that the current quota for heat pumps sold by boiler manufacturers would rise from 6pc to 8pc from April 2026. It means for every 92 boilers sold, manufacturers must sell eight heat pumps. If they fall short, companies face a fine of £500 per unsold heat pump.

The fines are passed on to customers in the form of higher prices to cover the losses, leading the policy to be dubbed the “boiler tax”.

Figures for the UK’s four biggest boiler manufacturers – Worcester Bosch, Vaillant, Ideal and Baxi – suggest the 8pc target is far above current demand, meaning hefty fines are inevitable.

Adrian Waddelove, of the Heating and Hotwater Industry Council, a trade body, said Mr Miliband’s new boiler tax would add about £100 to the price of each appliance.

Full story here.

And you know what? This fine won’t make the slightest difference to heat pump sales, which people still can’t afford and do not want.

Meanwhile heat pump sales remain stuck at about 4000 a month, well short of the 50,000 target.