Day: November 12, 2025

RFK Jr. probes health dangers of offshore wind turbines

Beset by soaring prices, an increasingly hostile regulatory climate, and growing public opposition in coastal communities, offshore wind faces a new challenge from a powerful public official and erstwhile booster of strict climate policies.

A view of offshore wind turbines standing on platforms in rough waters under a cloudy sky.

From CFACT

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Offshore wind turbines silhouetted against a sunset over the ocean.
Offshore Wind Farm

Beset by soaring prices, an increasingly hostile regulatory climate, and growing public opposition in coastal communities, offshore wind faces a new challenge from a powerful public official and erstwhile booster of strict climate policies.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate wind projects’ effects on the health and safety of commercial fishermen, Bloomberg News reports. Specifically, Kennedy in late summer quietly instructed CDC’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to prepare such research. The office of the U.S. Surgeon General is also involved in the assessment.

Originally, the research was to be wrapped up within a couple of months, but its completion has been delayed by the government shutdown. “Work on this report has been halted solely due to the Democrat-led shutdown,” a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told Reuters.

Human Health Effects

To date, research on the human health effects of offshore wind turbines has been spotty, with a 2011 literature review finding “no peer-reviewed articles demonstrate a direct causal link between people living in proximity to modern wind turbines, the noise they emit and resulting physiological health effects,” according to The Hill.

But a study released in January by the University of Portsmouth in the U.K. warned of potentially harmful levels of metals from turbine protection systems. “The materials used to protect wind turbines from corrosion leach into the surrounding water, which could pose risks to ecosystems, seafood safety, and human health,” the study found. “Offshore wind farms release thousands of [tons] of aluminum, zinc, and iridium each year.”

Professor Gordon Watson of the university’s School of the Environment and Life Sciences supports wind farms because of their role in reducing carbon emissions but adds, “There is limited data on how these metals affect the environment near operational offshore wind farms, so it’s hard to assess the full risks.”

Other Research

Green Oceans, a New England-based nonpartisan community group formed in 2023 “to protect the ocean against industrialization,” released a report in January titled “Offshore Wind and Human Health.”

“Offshore wind turbine blades erode over time, releasing harmful contaminants into the ocean, including microplastics and Bisphenol A,” the report found.

“Blades fail more frequently than previously recognized. A collapsed blade can scatter over 50 tons of PVC foam, PET, epoxy resins, forever chemicals (PFAs), styrene, formaldehyde, and phthalates into the ocean. These chemicals are associated with an increased risk of cancer, endocrine disruption, and immune system alteration.”

“Studies have found microplastics in marine mammal tissues and the human cardiovascular systems,” the study adds. “Microplastics correlate with an increased risk of heart disease.”

The concerns raised in these studies provide ample justification for the report Secretary Kennedy has ordered. While offshore wind farms’ effect on marine life, including the endangered right whale along the Mid- and North Atlantic coasts, has garnered much attention, the human element has been largely neglected. Commercial fishermen who earn their living by entering waters where gigantic wind turbines, their platforms, and undersea cables are commonplace are exposed daily to any contaminants emanating from this “clean” source of energy.

Trump’s Aversion and Bill Gates’ Conversion

President Donald Trump has made no secret of his hostility to offshore wind, which to him is a matter of both aesthetics and revulsion over the gobs of taxpayer money that have been lavished on these monstrosities. If the CDC concludes that commercial fishermen are at risk from offshore wind installations, investors will have another reason to think twice before providing capital for these projects — something businessman Trump understands only too well.

Kennedy’s action on offshore wind coincides with the eye-popping statement from longtime climate warrior Bill Gates that climate change “won’t lead to humanity’s demise.” Gates is a shrewd enough operator to know when the winds are shifting. The sun is setting on wind and solar power, and the climate agenda he once championed is no longer in vogue. He’s moving on.

This article originally appeared at The Federalist

UK Regulator Proposes Energy Companies Use RCP8.5 for Stress Testing Climate Impacts

A public writ for resource misallocation and higher British energy bills.

A dramatic seascape featuring a dark, stormy sky, crashing waves, and a fiery explosion in the background. Overlaying the image are the acronyms 'ipcc,' 'RCP2.6,' 'RCP4.5,' and 'RCP8.5' in varying colors and sizes, representing different climate scenario pathways.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t strativarius, Daily Skeptic – A public writ for resource misallocation and higher British energy bills.

Consultation

ED3 Sector Specific Methodology Consultation – Climate resilience stress testing methodological

framework Annex

Publication date: 08 October 2025
Response deadline: 03 December 2025
Contact: Chris Bishop, Alex Holder
Team: Climate Resilience Team
Telephone: 020 7901 7000
Email: ClimateResilienceTeam@ofgem.gov.uk

…

We are consulting on the methodologies we will apply for the electricity distribution sector in the ED3 price control which will run from 1 April 2028 to 31 March 2033. We would like views from stakeholders with an interest in the regulation of energy networks. We would particularly welcome responses from groups representing consumers of electricity. We would also welcome responses from other stakeholders and the public.

This document provides the framework to the methodology for Phase A stress testing with outputs expected from ED licensed network operators by December 2025. More detailed guidance and templates will be provided to network operators separately. This document is an Annex to the ED3 Sector Specific Methodology Consultation (SSMC) core document and should be read alongside it.

…

The methodology of Phase A is comprised of five key steps (for more detail see Chapter 5):

  • Step 1 evidence gathering – Ofgem undertakes a Rapid Evidence Review of existing literature and evidence to inform vulnerability of network assets to climate hazards. DNOs attribute location data to fault data and submit to Ofgem;
  • Step 2 fragility curves and vulnerability analysis – The Met Office correlates the fault data with weather data to understand the relationship between a specific impact parameter, eg customer minutes lost, and specific weather conditions, namely windstorms and extreme high temperatures. This will produce fragility curves according to asset classes. …
  • Step 3 climate stress test analysis – The Met Office will estimate how the vulnerability thresholds for windstorms and extreme heat are projected to change in 2080 based on climate projections using a 4°C warming scenario using RCP8.5. 12 DNOs consider flood risk assessments for substations in line with ETR138 and, for England, utilising the latest relevant flood maps;
  • Step 4 valuation and resilience options – DNOs estimate the investment that will be required to maintain current levels of service and mitigate future changes to vulnerability thresholds by following guidance provided by Ofgem; and
  • Step 5 Final analysis and findings – We will analyse the DNOs’ submissions and utilise its findings, alongside other evidence, to inform a long-term climate resilience goal for ED3.

…

Step 3 climate stress test analysis

5.8 This step looks to consider how climate in 2080 could impact on the impact parameter based on 4°C global warming under RCP8.5. For windstorms and extreme temperatures, this will be done by the Met Office who will explore using ERA5 data to assess past event impacts and produce any necessary bias corrections to wind projections.

…

5.10 The UK Climate Projections (UKCP18)15 will be used to provide projections of future climate change, using the RCP8.5 warming scenario pathway. Temperature data can be provided to 5km grid resolution whilst wind gusts can be provided up to 12km resolution which will affect the level of granularity we can provide on future changes. It should be noted that assessing the climate change signal and robust projections is more challenging for windstorms than for temperature derived metrics.

…

Step 4 climate resilience options and cost analysis

5.13 Step 4 aims to understand the costs of resilience options and actions which:

  • Would be required to maintain “current levels of resilience” – specifically, which resilience actions could be taken to reduce the updated impact parameter value (identified in step 3 as change to projected impact expected under climate change) back down the vulnerability threshold level (as agreed under step 2).
  • Are identified by applying ETR138 to substations, assuming a climate scenario of RCP8.5 in 2080, using DNOs existing approaches to flood risk assessment alongside any additional investments for other assets at risk of flooding.

…Read more: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-10/ED3%20SSMC%20Climate%20Resilience%20Stress%20Testing%20Methodological%20Framework%20Annex%20FINAL_clean.pdf

Roger Pielke Jnr’s take on RCP 8.5;

What is a “Worst Case” Climate Scenario?

Making sense of climate scenarios, Part 3

ROGER PIELKE JR.
JUN 05, 2025

The implausibly extreme and hugely popular climate scenario RCP8.5 made it into President Trump’s executive order last week on “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” Ironically, the Trump administration’s characterization of RCP8.5 did not quite reach the “gold standard,” and maybe not even a “bronze standard. “

The EO states:

[Federal a]gencies have used Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenario 8.5 to assess the potential effects of climate change in a “higher” warming scenario. RCP 8.5 is a worst-case scenario based on highly unlikely assumptions like end-of-century coal use exceeding estimates of recoverable coal reserves. Scientists have warned that presenting RCP 8.5 as a likely outcome is misleading.

RCP8.5 is not simply “highly unlikely” — it is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively in Burgess et al. 2021, from which the annotated figure below comes from.

A graph displaying global CO2 emissions from energy, comparing projections based on the RCP8.5 scenario with real-world emissions and near-term projections from 2005 to 2045.

The gap between the black arrow (RCP8.5) and the blue arrow (reality) indicates that RCP8.5 is not just unlikely, but impossible — it is already wildly wrong. Since we published that paper, that gap between RCP8.5 and reality has only grown larger (stay tuned on that!).

…Read more: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-is-a-worst-case-climate-scenario?utm_source=publication-search

What does the UK MET, Britain’s official scientific climate authority, have to say about RCP8.5?

UKCP18 Guidance: Representative Concentration Pathways

What are RCPs?

To model and predict future climate it is necessary to make assumptions about the economic, social and physical changes to our environment that will influence climate change.

Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are a method for capturing those assumptions within a set of scenarios. The conditions of each scenario are used in the process of modelling possible future climate evolution.

RCPs specify concentrations of greenhouse gases that will result in total radiative forcing increasing by a target amount by 2100, relative to pre-industrial levels. Total radiative forcing is the difference between the incoming and outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere. Radiative forcing targets for 2100 have been set at 2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5 watts per square metre (W m-2) to span a wide range of plausible future emissions scenarios and these targets are incorporated into the names of the RCPs; RCP2.6, RCP4.5,

RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. Each pathway results in a different range of global mean temperature increases over the 21st century (see Table 1).

…Read more: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/ukcp/ukcp18-guidance—representative-concentration-pathways.pdf

It seems pretty obvious what is happening here.

RCP8.5, by any reasonable measure, is junk science. But until the IPCC or UK MET or other official body comes clean and issues official guidance about the implausibility of RCP8.5, bureaucrats have to defer to the officially sanctioned worst case scenario for any stress testing guidance.

Unfortunately, in this case the choice of such an unrealistic scenario has real world consequences. Unless this bureaucratic train wreck is somehow diverted during the consultation phase, Energy companies are going to be forced to build flood defences and more elaborate cooling systems, to guard against a fantasy scenario which will never happen. I’m not sure what impact this will have on already exorbitant British energy bills, but I’m sure glad I won’t have to experience that impact first hand.

Junk science and government

Science controversies have become left-right wars fought on the internet. These days everything exists, from run-of-the-mill issues such as (fake) climate change or extreme numbers of unsafe vaccines children need to receive — up to 80 by age 18, including boosters, and COVID vaccines saving lives (hardly, but anyhow), to the Tylenol-autism dustup.

An illustration of a distressed scientist sitting at a desk, resting his head on his hands, surrounded by laboratory equipment and papers, depicting the struggle with scientific controversies.

From American Thinker

By S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski

Science controversies have become left-right wars fought on the internet. These days everything exists, from run-of-the-mill issues such as (fake) climate change or extreme numbers of unsafe vaccines children need to receive — up to 80 by age 18, including boosters, and COVID vaccines saving lives (hardly, but anyhow), to the Tylenol-autism dustup.

Even people with life experience and common sense have problems judging such controversies; and the internet is where sound science competes with junk science.

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) spent the past few years examining the methods of four different fields of science that lead to irreproducible (false) evidence used by governments. Flawed methods are big part of what leads to false evidence and junk science. Guess where most of this junk originates? Government-funded academia.

Academic junk science has been allowed to run amuck for decades and with little or no policing from university administrations. Elite universities, e.g., Harvard, seem to be right in there among the infestation. They would have us think they are important for science innovation. They’re wrong: more often than not — key innovations come from private industries and industrial laboratories rather than from universities.

So where does junk science fit in? It works in favor of government policymakers who mostly spend their career on our dime trying to make their jobs more important. They do this by using junk science to create irresponsible polices and regulations that are costly, meaningless, or even harmful to us.

Government policies should be built on transparent and accountable scientific research. Policies (and regulations) developed from research should clear a high barrier of proof. They should be based on reproducible science. Unsurprisingly, too many government science policies fail here.

All this points to a policy crisis in government. The current situation is win/win for government bureaucrats and universities: agency propaganda is supported and universities get grants. The citizens — us — are the ones paying for the loss of freedom.

The road to fixing this mess has already started at the top — the White House, with a landmark executive order Restoring Gold Standard Science. This order is a return to foundational scientific principles in government — fostering discovery, innovation, and trust in science. To this end, we offer four reforms to help governments.

1. Cut the funding of junk science. Federal government agencies need to change their regulatory and funding practices to fix the irreproducibility crisis in academic science and the irresponsibility crisis in our government.

A graphic illustrating the impact of junk science on government policy and scientific research.

2. Sever the fraudulent relationship between government policymakers and academic junk scientists. Federal and state policymakers need to end the arbitrary procedures of using government-funded scientific research for regulation if it is irreproducible.

3. Fix the process fueling this train wreck. Federal and state policymakers need to change the teaching of undergraduate (and K‒12) science and math to educate properly a new generation of science professionals, policymakers, and informed citizens. They certainly should cover junk science and fossil fuel development, the latter which is linked to our prosperity.

4. Refocus policy institutes to dedicate themselves to sound science policy as a priority. These institutes need to be staffed with people who know the difference between sound and junk science, and the benefits of fossil fuels.

Previous administrations have allowed a cesspit of relationships between government policymakers and academic junk scientists, including radical activists disguised as scientists.

Government experts employed to judge scientific research and academics (whom mostly lean left) are naïve or sly practitioners of political groupthink. They are not our friends.

These reforms will go a long way in reversing the current situation of government bureaucrats and academics jointly using regulation based on junk science to advance corrupt, self-serving policy goals.

S. Stanley Young, PhD, is the CEO of CGStat in Raleigh, North Carolina and is Director of the National Association of Scholars’ Shifting Sands Project. Warren Kindzierski, PhD, is a retired college professor (public health) in St Albert, Alberta.

A smiling scientist with white hair and glasses sits at a workbench with various laboratory equipment, holding a pen and illuminated flasks.
Image: AT via Magic Studio

“Existential Crisis”: German Chancellor Demands Tariff Protection for Industry Hit by High Energy Prices

Germany’s steel industry is facing an “existential crisis”, Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned, as he signalled a shift toward greater economic self-reliance in Europe. He spoke alongside Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil following a summit at the Chancellery on Thursday, convened to find ways to secure the sector’s future.

Molten steel being poured from a furnace in an industrial setting, with vibrant green lighting in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

A comic-style illustration featuring four cartoonish characters with expressive faces against a black background. One character is speaking in a speech bubble, stating, 'WE NEED AN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY MASTERPLAN,' while another character exclaims, 'GOSH!!'.

h/t observa; I’m sure those cheaper renewable energy prices will kick in. Any day now.

Billions at stake: Chancellor Merz backs European patriotism for steel

Story by Franziska Müller

Germany’s steel industry is facing an “existential crisis”, Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned, as he signalled a shift toward greater economic self-reliance in Europe. He spoke alongside Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil following a summit at the Chancellery on Thursday, convened to find ways to secure the sector’s future.

…

€50 billion at risk

Steelmaking in Germany is heavily dependent on high temperatures, making it particularly vulnerable to soaring energy prices. As a result, German steel has become increasingly uncompetitive compared with imports.

In the worst-case scenario, the country could lose its status as an industrial powerhouse, with companies moving production abroad. A study by the University of Mannheim, commissioned by the Hans Böckler Foundation, warned that such a shift could cost the German economy up to €50bn a year in lost value added.

The researchers estimated that at least 30,000 jobs could be lost if domestic production were to collapse. They said key sectors such as metal manufacturing, mechanical and electrical engineering, and the automotive industry would face sharply higher costs if forced to rely on imported steel.

…Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/news/billions-at-stake-chancellor-merz-backs-european-patriotism-for-steel/ar-AA1PYDk9

The economic illiteracy of this government proposal in my opinion demonstrates why the German economy has been slipping so badly over the last few decades.

Imposing higher tariffs without addressing underlying economic problems such as high energy prices, as President Trump is doing in the USA, will not save German industry, it just shifts the pain downstream onto German end use manufacturers. In an economy as dependent on exports as Germany, this absurd steel patriotism proposal is a recipe for capital flight and economic ruin.

COP30: The usual suspects sound the alarm, but funding is diminishing

Prince William speaks, but others are singing a new climate tune

Entrance to the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP30 in Belém, Brazil, showcasing the event's branding and tropical decorations.

From CFACT

By Peter Murphy

Prince William speaks, but others are singing a new climate tune

Belém, Brazil

The CFACT crew has descended upon this year’s United Nations 30th Conference of the Parties, hosted by the nation of Brazil in the northern city of Belém. The adjacent and thought-to-be precious Amazon rainforest received a major haircut to make way for the new Avenida Liberdade highway and hotel space for this annual gabfest on climate existentialism. Right on cue, world leaders began the proceedings to sound the alarm.

The wrinkle for this year’s conference is that fewer people are listening to the familiar and shopworn admonitions about climate existentialism to the planet, starting with the executive branch of the wealthiest nation and one of the top climate donors.

Let’s start with the future king of the rapidly declining British Empire, William, the Prince of Wales. Following in his father’s climate footsteps, “Wills,” as his late mother, Diana, affectionately referred to him, warned: “All of us here today understand that we are edging dangerously close to the earth’s critical tipping points … The melting of polar ice, the loss of the Amazon, the disruption of ocean currents … these are not distant threats. They are fast-approaching and will affect every one of us, no matter where we live.”

Despite his vapid claim, “The science is clear,” the prince provided none in his speech. He should try next time with CFACT’s latest “Climate Fact Check” (here).

William also praised his father, King Charles III, for inspiring him on the climate issue, and it shows. His speech had a familiar ring, since then-Prince Charles said pretty much the same thing at COP26 in Scotland back in 2021, which he summed up as the “last-chance saloon” for the planet Earth.

His Royal Majesty the King has a long record of climate exaggerations and scaremongering that continue to be discredited with the passage of time, yet it gives his son and successor no pause or humility on the subject. In 2009, Charles warned that “irretrievable climate collapse” was just 100 months away. Just before 2017 came and went, he recalculated the point of no return to around 2050, thereby falling in line with the UN groupthink goal of achieving “net-zero” carbon emissions worldwide.

At this COP30, more than climate is changing, with at least one long time activist and funder having second thoughts. Bill Gates, founder and former long-time head of the Microsoft Corporation and for a time the wealthiest man on planet Earth, has been rethinking his approach to climate by shifting his fortune to other, more urgent priorities. This matters greatly since he presides over the largest private foundation, valued at $86 billion.

While he still views climate change as a “problem,” Mr. Gates said last month, “It will not lead to humanity’s demise” — a statement that cuts the legs out from under the entire climate agenda. That is because if the planet’s future and humanity itself no longer hang in the balance, there is no reason to light everyone’s hair on fire — and extract trillions of taxpayer dollars and debt — to purportedly deal with the matter.

Rather, Gates writes, “Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries.” This means curbing CO2 emissions will take a distant back seat.

The financial implications of this shift are significant. The massive Gates Foundation fortune shifting its priorities to fighting global poverty and disease in developing countries is money better spent. Trying to stop natural climate variations in one direction over the next 30 years will not feed one malnourished child, nor will it stop another diseased child from dying well before adulthood and the supposed climate Armageddon.

Another big change at COP30 is the effect of democracy leading to the re-election of Donald Trump as president of the U.S., resulting in the absence of his administration at COP30. The president is defunding the “Green New Scam,” as he describes it, which we will explore later this week.

Money is the mother’s milk of the climate industry. Having the richest country and the richest benefactor either pull the plug or shift priorities is a very big deal.

Which brings us back to Prince William. Notwithstanding the British royal family’s climate silliness and hypocrisy, I give credit to William and his lovely wife, Kate, who otherwise are genuine and committed public servants, in contrast to their pretentious grifter relatives residing eight time zones westward. With King Charles, who turns 77 this week and has been fighting cancer for two years, William will soon ascend to the throne as head of state to a rapidly declining Great Britain with a growing litany of troubles and crises that eclipse esoteric climate change.

Now that Prince William’s climate trek to Brazil and his virtue-signaling speech are behind him, he should focus his nation on energy development, the economy, migrant issues, and his nation’s assault on free speech, to name a few much higher priorities than climate.

EVs to be taxed for driving in France!

Motorists face being taxed for driving electric cars in France under Rachel Reeves’s pay-per-mile plan.

A sleek silver electric car parked at a charging station surrounded by greenery.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

This will please the Dordogne luvvies!

Headline about motorists being taxed for driving in France under a pay-per-mile plan.

Motorists face being taxed for driving electric cars in France under Rachel Reeves’s pay-per-mile plan.

Motorists holidaying abroad will continue to pay the 3p tariff even if they are not using UK roads.

It means a 1,530-mile round trip from Calais to Nice on the south coast of France would cost an extra £45.90.

Drivers will essentially be taxed twice, as the mileage tariff would come in addition to the “péage” tolls, which are commonplace on French motorways.

Critics of the policy told The Telegraph the failure to discount charges for mileage racked up abroad would be “unfair and a huge flaw”.

The Chancellor is due to announce the pay-per-mile scheme at this month’s Budget, with the rates introduced from 2028.

The 3p tariff would align with the annual vehicle excise duty (VED) payment, with EV owners asked to estimate the number of miles they will drive in the year ahead. Hybrid vehicles will also be liable for the charge, but at a lower rate.

Full story here.

Naturally the greenies are up in arms!

But there is one alternative – simply charge all EV owners a fixed tariff surcharge of £1000 on their VED. That would equate to the fuel duty tax paid by most petrol car drivers.

Currently at 3p/mile, they are only paying about half the fuel duty paid by the latter.

Better still, if you have an EV and think you are being treated unfairly, sell it and buy a diesel!

Waste of the Day: Michigan’s Chinese Battery Plant Falls Through

Topline: Michigan’s plan to rely on a Chinese company to create American jobs is dead in the water. The state pulled out of an agreement to give Gotion, Inc., $715 million in subsidies for an electric vehicle battery plant, but there’s no guarantee Michigan will recoup the $23.6 million that was already paid.

A tattered Chinese flag waving against a dark and stormy sky with lightning in the background.

From Watts Up With That?

By Jeremy Portnoy

Topline: Michigan’s plan to rely on a Chinese company to create American jobs is dead in the water. The state pulled out of an agreement to give Gotion, Inc., $715 million in subsidies for an electric vehicle battery plant, but there’s no guarantee Michigan will recoup the $23.6 million that was already paid.

Key facts: Michigan agreed in 2022 to give Gotion up to $175 million in grants and $540 million in tax breaks to help fund the $2.4 billion plant. It was projected to create 2,350 jobs. 

Progress was slow and opposition came quickly. Then-Senator Marco Rubio and other top congressional Republicans raised concerns, claiming that the company’s founder and top shareholders had ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Local voters in Green Charter Township recalled the officials who approved the plan and replaced them with new ones who sued Gotion to try and stop the plant.

Graphic highlighting Michigan's loss of $23.6 million taxpayer funds due to a failed agreement with a Chinese battery company.

Waste of the Day 11.7.25

Open the Books

On Sept. 17 this year, the state privately told Gotion that it was in violation of the grant agreement because Gotion had made no construction progress in 120 days. The state claimed Gotion “abandoned” the project and had 30 days to resume its work. A response letter from the company’s attorneys said that was “utterly false” and local opposition “due solely to racist and ethnically charged stereotypes” was causing the delays.

Local media did not yet know about the dispute, and in early October, the state told the news outlet Bridge Michigan that the battery plant was still on track to be successful — a claim that now seems to be a lie. Michigan publicly announced on Oct. 23 that it was pulling out of the deal.

The Michigan Economic Development Corporation said it will try to claw back the $23.6 million it gave Gotion to buy land, but no specific plan has been released. No other public money was dispersed.

Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Critical quotes: Rich Studley, former president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, told Bridge Michigan he has “zero confidence” the $23.6 million will be returned to taxpayers. State Rep. Tom Kunse, who represents Green Charter Township, said, “This is yet another example of why corporate welfare doesn’t work. Taxpayer funded incentive deals often fail to deliver on promises, leaving our communities with broken commitments and wasted public dollars.”

Summary: Even well-planned corporate tax breaks are of questionable benefit to taxpayers, but public funds should not be handed out to companies that cannot deliver on their promises.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

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

Alarmists play long game at COP30

From CFACT

Climate alarmism has been seriously stalled by a combination of President Trump and unfavorable economic conditions. So, the diplomats laboring at COP30 are working on long-term issues, hoping for better “weather,” as it were. They are still very busy negotiating the future.

Major policy initiatives often take a decade or more, so while subdued, the work has not slowed down. Rumors of the death of alarmism are greatly exaggerated. The greens are just biding their time.

Most of the issues are about money, of course, although the call for increased 2030 emission reduction targets is also on the table. The money issues mostly have to do with long-term objectives and mechanisms. This includes various global taxes such as on shipping emissions and airfare.

An unavoidable, immediate money issue is raising the supposed $100 billion annual payment by “developed” countries to “developing” countries. (This distinction between donor and recipient countries is based on two lists from 1992 that are long out of date.)

But even here, what was once talk of trillions has moderated to a mere hundreds of billions in the short term. Instead, they are supposed to develop a roadmap to get to $1.3 trillion a year some time from now.

On the new emission targets, there has been a distinct lack of ambition. Many developing countries have yet to submit theirs. One reason may be that these grand plans are all written as being contingent on funding from the “developed” countries. Raising these numbers could be a bad move politically.

The EU just squeezed its new target in. It increases the loopholes more than the target. Even at that, several member countries objected to it.

One of the biggest things happening is likely to fly under the news radar since it sounds vague and small. The new “Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD)” has a mere $250 million, but COP30 will see the formal launch of the Fund’s first call for project funding requests.

These loss and damage response requests will be from developing countries hit hard by bad weather supposedly caused by climate change, or maybe by sea-level rise, or even by wildfires. The thing is that, at this point, we have no idea what qualifies as climate loss or damage. That vagueness makes this first proposal process a very big deal even if the money is next to nothing.

If every bit of big bad weather is a “climate event,” as they are now called, how do you decide which deserves a cash response? If only certain events qualify, then which are they? These are very difficult questions which the FRLD is launching at COP30.

Also, which countries qualify? It is sometimes said that this funding is intended for just the poorest countries. If so, then what is the qualifying threshold for compensation? How poor does a country have to be?

Ideally, these questions will be addressed in the call for funding proposals, but maybe not. For that matter, does the COP membership have a say in the answers? If not, then why is the call being made at the COP? If so, then it could produce some serious infighting.

As an aside, a recent study reported an interesting problem with countries taking FRLD funding. Some say they do not want to do it because their populace would then want to be funded for all weather-related loss and damage, not just what the FRLD funded.

Note that the FRLD could get sizable because developed countries already put a lot of money into disaster assistance. They could run it through the FRLD as a feel-good exercise, maybe even counting it toward the annual payment. A lot of foreign aid is already counted that way.

In summary, the popular idea that COP30 is a dead end is false. They will just give the busy-work program a future focus. Diplomats do that all the time.