12/05/2025 – Climate- Science.press

Affordability Crisis: Gavin Newsom and the California Energy Disaster

At COP30, the United Nations Climate Conference, Governor Gavin Newsom praised California’s use of renewable energy and attacked the energy policies of the Trump administration. But from high prices to failing renewable systems, California is an energy affordability disaster.

A man in a suit passionately speaking at a podium in an urban setting, with the text 'No gas and oil.' superimposed.

From Watts Up With That?

By Steve Goreham

Originally published in NewsBlaze.

Last week at COP30 in Brazil, California Governor Gavin Newsom boasted that his state gets “two-thirds of its energy sourced from clean energy.” He also said that “nine out of ten days run at a portion of the day at 100% clean energy.”

However, the governor meant electricity, not energy. According to the US Department of Energy (DOE), in 2024 California generated 57% of its electricity from renewables and 7% from nuclear, close to the “two-thirds” claim by the governor. But only about 15% of California’s energy is consumed as electricity. When you include transportation and industry, more than 80% of California’s total energy consumption still comes from hydrocarbon fuels, with 58% from petroleum and 25% from natural gas in 2023.

A transition to renewable electricity has been a California priority for more than 20 years. The state closed 11 coal-fired plants and converted three other coal plants to burn biomass fuel. The San Onofre nuclear station was closed in 2013. At the same time, the state installed 22 gigawatts of utility-scale solar capacity and an additional 18 gigawatts of rooftop solar, both state-leading totals, along with more than 6 gigawatts of wind capacity.

But California’s transition to renewable electricity is an affordability disaster. From 2008 to 2024, California electricity prices rose 116% compared to a national average electricity increase of 33%. State residential electricity prices are now 32 cents per kilowatt-hour, second highest in the nation, rapidly approaching leader Hawaii, and roughly double the national average price. Air-conditioning a medium-sized California home can cost $1,000 per month.

At COP30 Newsom said, “I initiated the first-in-the-nation zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate by 2035.” ZEVs are typically electric vehicles (EVs) or hydrogen vehicles. California’s ZEV law would force all in-state auto sales to be ZEVs by 2035, preventing consumers from buying gasoline cars.

California ZEV mandates are also a high-cost approach. As of April 2025, the average price of a new EV sold in the US was about $59,000, more than 20% higher than the $48,700 average price for a new gasoline car. This included a discount for the federal EV tax credit, up to $7,500 on a new EV sale. But the EV tax credit was ended in September by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress in July. EVs will remain higher priced than gasoline cars for the foreseeable future.

California leads the nation in hydrogen cars with about 12,000 on the road, but these are also expensive. Fuel for hydrogen cars costs at least $14 per equivalent gasoline gallon. The California Energy Commission has spent over $200 million to subsidize hydrogen fueling stations, but the number of stations is dropping, from a high of about 65 stations to 55 today. The number of hydrogen cars on the road is also falling.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation (ACF) went into effect in 2024. The regulation intended to force all trucks operating in California to be zero emissions. But electric trucks cost 2─3 times as much as diesel trucks, and because of heavier weight, carry less freight. Diesels can travel about 1200 miles after filling the tank in 15 minutes. The range of electric trucks is only about 150─330 miles and recharging take hours, even on a high-speed charger. The ACF promised to be another unaffordable mandate from the Newsom administration.

But in a win for affordability, the Congress and President Trump struck down California’s ZEV and ACF laws last spring. The 1980 Clean Air Act and revisions to the act give the EPA responsibility for national air pollution regulations. California’s ability to regulate air pollution requires a waiver from the EPA, which the administration revoked in May. Governor Newsom has sued the federal government to try to re-establish the unaffordable ZEV and ACF mandates.

Costly California also has the most expensive gasoline and diesel fuel in the nation. This week, state regular gasoline prices are $4.67 per gallon, more than 50% higher than the national average of $3.07/gallon. But California prices may be going much higher because refineries are closing.

In the 1980s, more than 40 refineries operated in California. This number has declined to 13 operating refineries. Two additional refineries, the Phillips 66 Wilmington facility and Valero’s Benicia plant, have announced that they will close in the next six months. As a result, California gasoline prices may rise to $8 per gallon.

California’s renewable systems themselves have been failing. Earlier this year, it was announced that the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in the Mojave Desert would close next year after only 12 years of operation. Ivanpah was constructed for $2.2 billion in 2014, with $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees, and was the world’s largest solar facility at the time. But Ivanpah produced less electricity than expected and needed natural gas to try to stay operational.

Last summer Governor Newsom announced that California had added more than 2,300 megawatts of grid battery storage, stating “The key to a cleaner, more reliable power grid is batteries — and no other jurisdiction on the planet, save China, comes even close to our deployment.” Grid batteries intend to back up intermittent wind and solar systems, storing electricity when wind and solar output is high and then releasing it when output is low. But batteries are prone to self-ignition and spectacular failure.

On May 15, 2024, the Gateway Energy Storage system near San Diego caught fire. The 250-megawatt facility burned for 17 days and reignited several times after fire crews had extinguished the blaze. A battery facility in Escondido, also near San Diego, caught fire five months later.

On January 16 of this year, the battery system at Moss Landing, California caught fire and burned for several days. The 300 MW system was one of the largest in the world but was 55% destroyed after only three years of operation. Roads and schools closed, and 12,000 residents were asked to temporarily evacuate during the blaze. Residents pay for the cost of battery failures with higher electricity bills.

Green energy mandates cause California housing prices to rise. The 2020 California Solar Mandate requires new homes to have solar panels and wiring for electric appliances. The California Building Standards Commission enacted standards that require conduit for EV charging in single-family homes and parking facilities with EV chargers for multi-family homes and hotels. These requirements make housing less affordable for low-income residents.

The newest Democrat party line is “affordability,” but renewable energy in California shows how not to be affordable.

Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy and author of the bestselling book Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.

Sorry, NPR, There Is No Evidence That Climate Change Made Hurricane Melissa Worse for Jamaica

National Public Radio ran a segment claiming climate change was to blame for Hurricane Melissa’s severity and its impact on Jamaica. There is no data to justify this claim, which is not supported by Jamaica’s hurricane history or Atlantic hurricane trends. Jamaica has been beset by hurricanes throughout its history, with many causing far more death and destruction than Melissa, and data show no long-term increase in hurricane numbers or intensity in the Atlantic region.

Satellite image of a powerful hurricane over the ocean, showcasing swirling clouds and a distinct eye at the center. — *GOES imagery: CSU/CIRA & NOAA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons*

From ClimateRealism

By H. Sterling Burnett

The online description of the NPR radio segment, “Jamaican residents wonder what’s next after climate-change-driven Hurricane Melissa,” summarizes international correspondent Eyder Peralta’s story, thusly: “Hurricane Melissa left Jamaica reeling and as scientists tie its unprecedented power to climate change, people are wondering what comes next.”

First, science made no such connection; rather, Peralta asserts the connection based on a single rapidly produced, non-peer reviewed attribution study.

Undoubtedly, Hurricane Melissa caused terrible damage in Jamaica, causing untold suffering for its people, some of which is touchingly described in Peralta’s story. Unfortunately, after admitting, “scientists are still sifting through the data,” suggesting that it is premature to state any conclusions about Melissa with any confidence, Peralta then latches on to a rapid attribution report from the climate change lobbying group, World Weather Attribution (WWA), to claim climate change made Hurricane Melissa worse.

“There’s a clear climate change imprint on Melissa,” the University of the West Indies’ Professor Michael Taylor, told Peralta, citing the WWA group paper he contributed to as evidence.

The WWA study asserted that Hurricane Melissa’s rapid intensification was made six times more likely because of climate change.

Among the evidence the paper cites as providing a causal climate change connection for Melissa is warmer seas in the Caribbean. Yet, the Caribbean seas have always been warm, and the recent modest increase in warmth is a result of a combination of factors, including a recent extended El Nino that warmed the Atlantic where Melissa formed, the huge 2022 Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption that injected an unprecedented amount of the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor, into the atmosphere, and changed shipping rules that have reduced ship emissions, meaning more sunlight is reaching the ocean surface and warming the seas. There is no significant long-term trend in ocean warming, but there has been a short-term spike. Yet this fact, and the myriad factors contributing to hurricane formation, were ignored in the WWA study and the climate model outputs, which the study’s findings are based upon. As detailed at Climate Realism, here and here, for example, warm water is only one factor necessary for hurricane formation, strength, and longevity.

Looking at Jamaica in particular, it lies in a prime hurricane zone and with hurricanes being recorded there as long as such phenomena have been tracked with a written record. Since record keeping began in the 1700s, Jamaica has been impacted by more than 58 tropical storms or hurricanes. Thankfully, for the island nation, most of those storms only dealt it a glancing blow, being hit by winds from storms passing near but not making direct landfall on the island. Still, even winds and rain from storms’ outer bands can cause significant damage and death.

Jamaica’s deadliest storm on record struck in 1722, more than 300 years of global warming ago, when a hurricane of unrecorded strength claimed 400 lives or more. The deadliest storm since then was Hurricane Charlie in 1951, which took 152 lives. By contrast, Melissa’s confirmed death toll stands at 45. The next direct hit of a hurricane on Jamaica didn’t occur for 37 years when, in 1988, Category 4 Gilbert struck, the costliest Jamaican hurricane on record.

Hurricane Sandy in 2012, a full 24 years after Gilbert, was the next hurricane to make direct landfall over the island.

There is no evidence at all that hurricanes are becoming more frequent or severe in or around Jamaica.

In fact, data recorded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show no statistically significant trend of increasing hurricane strength, frequency, or landfall intensity.

As Climate at a Glance: Hurricanes explains, there has been no increase in either the number or intensity of hurricanes worldwide during the past century, even as global carbon dioxide concentrations have risen sharply.

The IPCC’s most recent Sixth Assessment Report found “low confidence in any long-term trends in hurricane activity.”

Concerning hurricane strength or intensity, data indicated no sustained increase in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, a measure of intensity, over more than 50 years, as detailed in the figure below.

Graph showing global and northern hemisphere accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) over the last 50+ years with 24-month running sums. The graph includes peaks and troughs indicating fluctuations in cyclone energy levels.

The supposed “rapid intensification” phenomenon cited by WWA and Peralta as proving climate change drove Melissa’s intensity is not new. As Climate Realism has documented repeatedly, improved satellite monitoring and better detection methods since the 1970s make today’s storms appear more frequent and extreme simply because modern technology captures every detail that earlier weather observers missed. Earlier storm intensities were also harder to measure, making today’s apparent “increase” partly a result of better weather detection technology such as satellites, radar, and continuous monitoring. Past storms often were very strong and intensified rapidly—they just weren’t observed continuously from space or by coastal technology such as NEXRAD Doppler Radar, which didn’t exist before 1990.

Finally, concerning WWA and its rapid attribution reports, Climate Realism has rebutted the mainstream media’s fawning, misplaced promotion of debunked WWA reports across dozens of posts, here, here, and here, for example.

Rapid attribution studies suffer from multiple defects, from relying on climate models with known flaws and inadequacies, to cherry picking data to prove an assumed connection between climate change and the natural disaster in question, to the logical fallacy of assuming what one is attempting to prove. Statistician William Briggs, Ph.D., described the problems with attribution studies well in a report for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, writing:

All attribution studies work around the same basic theme. . . . A model of the climate as it does not exist, but which is claimed to represent what the climate would look like had mankind not ‘interfered’ with it, is run many times. The outputs from these runs is examined for some ‘bad’ or ‘extreme’ event, such as higher temperatures or increased numbers of hurricanes making landfall, or rainfall exceeding some amount. The frequency with which these bad events occur in the model is noted. Next, a model of the climate as it is said to now exist is run many times. This model represents global warming. The frequencies from the same bad events in the model are again noted. The frequencies between the models are then compared. If the model of the current climate has a greater frequency of the bad event than the imaginary (called ‘counterfactual’) climate, the event is said to be caused by global warming, in whole or in part.

Fundamentally, attribution science cannot be proof of human influences on the weather via climate change because it begins with the assumption that any given weather event is being influenced by climate change. In other words, the model is designed with the outcome in mind, making it impossible to “discover” anything to the contrary.

In the end, Peralta’s story is full of hype and unverified assertions about Hurricane Melissa but is short on historical context and hurricane data. Rapid attribution is a recent invention and not an established scientific discipline. Rapid attribution studies are not peer reviewed, with the best evidence suggesting their quick release is timed to promote the narrative that “climate change causes everything bad,” by capitalizing on a headline grabbing tragic weather event. Such studies are pre-determined to find a climate change link, sans reference to long-term real world data and historical regional context. Attribution studies are the scientific community’s equivalent of a carnival side-show fortune teller’s crystal ball proclamations.

NPR, if it had any journalistic integrity as a supposed news organization, should do some fact checking, by, for example, looking beyond a single novel study’s claims before publishing a story asserting a single weather terrible event was caused by a long-term shift in climate. This is especially important since real people are suffering and deserve honest answers, and long-term trends undermine any such connection.

Good News: Climate Cult in Decline — The Climate Realism Show #184

The Heartland Institute’s Jim Lakely, Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken will be joined by special guest and fan favorite Steve Milloy of Junkscience.com. We will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including an exodus from EPA, what climate policy failure looks like in graph form, perhaps the cringiest moment in COP history, and Donald Trump’s call to have those who have pushed climate alarmism investigated.

A promotional graphic for 'The Climate Realism Show' featuring a serious-looking man with grey hair and a microphone, with captions stating 'CLIMATE CULT IN DECLINE'.

The Heartland Institute

The signs are all around us. The climate cult is losing its grip on our politics and culture. The UN’s climate conference, COP30 in Brazil, was a flop that even the alarmist cheerleaders in the legacy media could not ignore. A major paper justifying radical climate action was just retracted. The Sierra Club is shedding a shocking number of members. And when was the last time you saw climate alarmist propaganda shoved annoyingly into your favorite TV show or movie – which was very common not so long ago?

Join us LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook.

Visit our sponsor, Advisor Metals: https://climaterealismshow.com/metals

Half-truths and misinformation on the topic of climate change and the energy transition

The consequences of climate change are fearmongering exaggerated (e.g. further spread of the apocalyptic RCP 8.5 scenario, although classified as extremely unlikely by IPCC 2021 and COP 28) or even unsubstantiated claimed. Negative aspects of the energy transition are omitted. It almost seems as if the citizen is to be kept happy by concerted indoctrination on these issues.

Aerial view of a renewable energy site featuring large solar panels and wind turbines in a vast open landscape with storage buildings.

From KlimaNachrichten

Educational failure in the media or guided by interests and ideology?

By Dr.-Ing. Ernst-Jürgen Niemann

As an engineer who has also worked on meteorological topics in research and practice and then worked in the energy sector for 30 years, including more than 10 years in the planning, tendering, awarding, construction and operation supervision of large wind farms, I am shocked by the low level of reporting, at which climate change or energy transition is very often reported unqualified or one-sidedly in the media and in politics. The consequences of climate change are fearmongering exaggerated (e.g. further spread of the apocalyptic RCP 8.5 scenario, although classified as extremely unlikely by IPCC 2021 and COP 28) or even unsubstantiated claimed. Negative aspects of the energy transition are omitted. It almost seems as if the citizen is to be kept happy by concerted indoctrination on these issues. Some typical examples are listed below:

“Hurricanes (cyclones) and floods are becoming more frequent and stronger due to climate change”:

At every such event, journalists, “experts”, meteorologists or politicians ignite a frightening storm with such reports, for which, however, there is no evidence whatsoever. Even the IPCC (“Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”), which estimates climate risks rather high and on whose predictions the CO_{2 –}currently sees no indication or probability of an increase in storms and floods (IPCC Assessment Report AR6, Table12.12). This is almost regularly ignored. The portrayal of the Ahr Valley flood in 2021 as a result of climate change is also such an example of such “fake news” (e.g. programme “mehr/wert”, BR, 20.11.2025). The Ahr Valley flood statistics are more of a proof of the independence of such floods from climate change: In the catchment area of the Ahr, which is prone to extreme flooding, there have always been comparable or larger flood events on the basis of flood marks, such as the Magdalen flood in 1342, in 1910 or the great flood in 1804. At about 1100 m³/s, the latter was about 25% significantly higher than the Ahr Valley flood in 2021!

“Wind/solar park covers electricity needs of xx households”: When wind or solar farms are expanded or opened, there are always such or similar reports that suggest to the public that this will ensure the power supply of other households. Unfortunately not! In the case of a wind farm, even in good wind conditions such as in northern Germany, these households would sit completely in the dark for more than 10% of the time and receive too little electricity more than 50% of the time. In the case of solar parks, this would be even more fatal, as electricity availability is completely lacking at night and is hardly available even during the day in winter.

“Sun and electricity do not send an invoice”: If politicians, climate activists or interest groups repeatedly spread such statements via the media and claim unrivalled cheapness, but at the same time put forward their demand for further state funding, then something is wrong. Logically, it should then be possible to implement the immediate abolition of subsidies! A typical example of misleading marketing with a shortened logic for the expansion of renewables, which conceals the true costs and ignores the complementary costs caused.

“With the expansion of renewables, the price of electricity is becoming cheaper and cheaper”:

These repetitive statements from interested parties or the press (e.g. FOCUS 25.11.2025) are formally correct if one only refers to the market value on the stock exchange. For example, the market value for solar on the stock exchange is constantly falling in the relevant summer months with high generation capacity due to further expansion (in 2023 approx. 5 ct/kWh, in 2024 approx. 4 ct/kWh and in 2025 almost just over 3 ct/kWh).
The economic marginal benefit of further expansion is therefore currently striving for ZERO! Responsible politicians or journalists should address this and warn against the associated increases in guaranteed price subsidies, which lead to an ever-higher burden on the state budget (EEG subsidy approx. 20 billion €/year) and consumers via grid fees! It is also a fact that the household electricity price has risen steadily with the expansion of renewables due to the high complementary costs.

“Batteries have become so cheap that battery storage should be used instead of gas-fired power plants”:

The costs for large-scale battery storage systems have fallen to such an extent that they pay off with one charging cycle per day and a price difference of about 10 ct/kWh. The electricity exchange yo-yo that takes place in the summer half-year due to solar radiation, with price differences of up to about 20 ct/kWh during the course of the day, offers a good economic basis for this (see example below 27 May – 6 June 2025, SMARD, Wholesale Price Germany/Luxembourg). Accordingly, there is currently a veritable gold rush for approvals for such large-scale storage facilities.

Line graph displaying electricity prices in Germany from May 27 to June 6, 2025, showing fluctuations in price per megawatt-hour.

In addition to the restriction that battery storage systems must be operated in a grid-friendly manner, there is a risk that too much expansion can become economically problematic. Due to the high proportion of large-scale battery storage systems, the daily cycle of electricity supply would be smoothed out more and more, which would also lead to a smoothing of wholesale prices. The large-scale battery storage systems would then cannibalize their profitability themselves due to a lack of price differences. The battery storage systems, which will then be systemically relevant with such a large expansion, will then have to be subsidized. Since they cannot bridge dark doldrums lasting several days, they do not replace controllable power plants, such as gas-fired power plants. So not only would the costs of maintaining quickly controllable gas-fired power plants be incurred, but also the costs of subsidizing battery storage systems, which would have to be absorbed by the electricity price or government subsidies.

“Network charges are the costs for the expansion and maintenance of the network”:

Behind this widely used abbreviated definition of grid charges is a complex, non-transparent cost structure. The costs for expansion and maintenance of the network are only one part. A significant share of the costs of the grid fees for households, which have risen to approx. 11 ct/kWh, are running costs for necessary grid stabilisation measures due to the expansion of solar and wind. A good 4 cents/kWh alone are incurred for redispatch measures (compensation for necessary shutdowns in the event of too much electricity in the grid), i.e. converted to the proportion of non-controllable renewables that cause the electricity, which is about 6 cents/kWh. In addition, there are costs for the provision of balancing energy or reserve power plants. If you add the state subsidies to producers through price guarantees (former EEG levy), then there are further approx. 9 ct/kWh costs for solar, wind and biogas electricity, which are borne by the taxpayer. Taking into account the prices paid on the stock exchange, the system generation costs attributable to renewables are therefore already likely to be around 20 cents/kWh today! With the further expansion of the grid (the high amortization and maintenance costs for the HVDC lines will hardly be able to be compensated for by lower redispatch costs) and the addition of balancing energy (gas-fired power plants), grid fees/costs will rise even further. Well-founded reporting on the energy transition also includes such critical aspects.

“In 2024, 60% of electricity generation in Germany consisted of renewable energies”:

Again and again, generation figures are cited as proof of progress in CO₂ savings (recently also mentioned in Belem by the Federal Minister for the Environment), although it is not generation but consumption that is decisive for this. Renewables will only account for 54% of electricity consumption in Germany in 2024 (according to the Working Group on Renewable Energy Statistics at the Federal Environment Agency). The difference to generation results from the high import of electricity from controllable power plants at times of low wind and solar power and the non-controllable electricity at times of high wind and solar power, which has to be sold abroad at dumping prices or even against payment. The import surplus currently amounts to about 5.7% on balance.

“China is leading the way in the expansion of renewables”:

Just in time for the UN climate summit in Belem, such a report came onto the market and was mostly spread uncritically via the media. The message: Even China does more than we do!. This is a completely misleading half-truth! China as a role model? China now has a higher per capita CO₂ (8.35 t/a) than Germany (7.2 t/a). The expansion of the electricity supply there is carried out completely differently than in Germany according to economic and supply independence criteria. With 60% of the electricity supply currently being supplied by coal, this will be further expanded in China (94.5 GW of new coal-fired power plant capacity in 2024 alone!!) and by 2040, the number of nuclear power plants will be doubled by 44 plants! Such power plants are built for at least 50 years! The load requirement is covered by controllable power plants. The parallel expansion of wind and solar serves, as originally in Germany, for “fuel saving”. The fact that this economically based concept, i.e. partial utilization of coal-fired and nuclear power plants when renewables are available, also leads to limited savings in CO₂emission is logical. In China, research and testing in the hydrogen sector serve more to prepare for the world market in the event that global demand actually arises in the hydrogen sector. Anyone who sees China as a role model should logically support the approach of “coal + nuclear + complementary renewables” in our country as well!

The fact that interest groups such as associations, parties, certain NGOs or even individual research institutions, …. spreading such half-truths or misinformation out of self-interest is understandable. It would be all the more important that the media, starting with the ÖR, always question such information critically and competently. Ideally, there should be specialist journalists with knowledge of physics in order to distinguish between power supply (load) and energy, for example, and to know the basics of grid stability and grid control requirements, or to understand something about theoretical meteorology (atmospheric physics) in climate topics in order to be able to deal with the complexity of their topics to some extent. Quality control in the media as well as in industry would be appropriate.

Claim: Household Bills are Causing Mental Distress – but Recycling More can Help

If you are worried about green energy prices, apparently the solution is make more effort to separate your trash.

A diverse group of people joyfully sorting colorful recyclable materials at a table, surrounded by plants.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

If you are worried about green energy prices, apparently the solution is make more effort to separate your trash.

Three ways climate change affects mental health – and why the story is more hopeful than it might seem

Published: December 3, 2025 7.04am AEDT
Fabian Lenhard
Researcher, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet

…

Direct effects: when extreme weather hits

Experiencing a flood, heatwave or wildfire can have a major effect on mental health. …

…

Indirect effects: financial strain and disrupted lives

Climate change affects our daily life. Droughts are strongly linked with higher levels of depression and anxiety, especially among farmers and rural communities that face lost harvests, mounting debts and uncertainty about the future.

…

Psychological effects: worry, grief and climate-related distress

The ongoing awareness of climate change and its consequences can create many emotions, including worry, grief, frustration, anger and hopelessness. …

…

The hopeful side: climate action can strengthen wellbeing

Feeling worried about climate change does not only create problems. It can also motivate people to take meaningful action. …

…

Also, research consistently shows that taking climate-positive actions can improve wellbeing. For example, studies from the UK show that people in “greener” households – those who recycle, save energy and make sustainable choices – tend to report higher life satisfaction.

…Read more: https://theconversation.com/three-ways-climate-change-affects-mental-health-and-why-the-story-is-more-hopeful-than-it-might-seem-270183

I’m not sure how recycling more will help pay the bills.

A more effective solution to household financial stress might be to vote for politicians who promise to cancel the Net Zero crusade, to bring down electricity prices. But maybe that’s just me.

Petrol cars cheaper than EVs after tax raid – unless you have a driveway

Rachel Reeves’s new pay-per-mile tax will make petrol cars cheaper to run than electric vehicles (EVs) unless drivers can charge them at home.

A blue electric vehicle parked indoors next to a charging station, with a city skyline visible through large windows in the background.

Experts estimate electric vehicle owners relying on public chargers could pay £290 more annually

Rachel Reeves’s new pay-per-mile tax will make petrol cars cheaper to run than electric vehicles (EVs) unless drivers can charge them at home. The Telegraph has the story.

Motorists forced to rely on public chargers will be left paying an estimated £290 more per year in running costs and taxes for their EVs compared to a petrol alternative, according to electric car advice site, Electrifying.com.

Home charging is now a “make or break factor” for electric car affordability following the planned introduction of Rachel Reeves’s pay-per-mile tax, which is intended to replace fuel duty.

The Chancellor confirmed last week that EVs will be subject to a 3p-per-mile levy starting in 2028.

In the wake of the changes, Electrifying.com compared the cost of owning and operating an electric Volkswagen ID.3 with that of a petrol Volkswagen Golf, based on driving both for about 8,000 miles per year.

The electric car’s annual running costs would average about £898, compared with £1,198 for a petrol Volkswagen Golf, based on current prices.

Comparison of running costs for electric and petrol vehicles, detailing annual expenses for Volkswagen ID.3 and Volkswagen Golf under various charging scenarios.

However, drivers without a garage or driveway who rely solely on public charging would see their annual running costs rise sharply, to around £1,490. Approximately 30pc of British households do not have access to off-street parking.

Drivers who can access a cheaper overnight rate when charging at home could enjoy substantially lower running costs, at £558.

Many drivers will likely use a mix of public and private charging, meaning they will be charged up to 60p per kilowatt hour (kWh) on public chargers for at least some of their journeys.

Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, which will be subject to a 1.5p per mile charge from 2028, would become more expensive to run than a petrol vehicle if they are not regularly charged at home.

Drivers who can access a cheaper overnight rate when charging at home could enjoy substantially lower running costs, at £558.

Many drivers will likely use a mix of public and private charging, meaning they will be charged up to 60p per kilowatt hour (kWh) on public chargers for at least some of their journeys.

Plug-in hybrids, meanwhile, which will be subject to a 1.5p per mile charge from 2028, would become more expensive to run than a petrol vehicle if they are not regularly charged at home.

Read the full story here.

Climate Extremists Ordered by Hamburg Court to Pay €400,000 In Damages

Germany’s Junge Freiheit reports that the Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht Hamburg) ruled in November 2025 that ten climate activists from the group “Last Generation” must pay a total of approximately €400,000 in damages to an airline.

Zwei Aktivisten der Gruppe "Letzte Generation" führen eine Protestaktion auf der Rollbahn eines Flughafens durch, während sie mit Klebstoff und Farbe arbeiten. Ein Banner mit der Aufschrift "LETZTE GENERATION VOR DEN RIPPPUNKTEN" liegt auf dem Boden.

From No Trick Zone

By P Gosselin

Group of climate activists holding protest signs at an airport, urging action against climate change, with private jets in the background. — *Symbol photo created by Grok AI*

The activists were involved in a sit-in blockade of Hamburg Airport in July 2023. The climate activists cut through the fence and glued themselves to the tarmac. This action led to the cancellation of 45 flights and affected 8,500 passengers

The affected airline, reportedly primarily Eurowings (part of the Lufthansa Group), sued the activists for compensation. The court awarded the airline damages of approximately €400,000.

Some reports mention that, in addition to the damages, the activists could also face legal costs amounting to approximately €700,000.

If the activists fail to pay the sum, they face up to two years of Ordnungshaft (civil detention).

This is one of the highest civil damage claims made against members of the “Last Generation” following a protest action in Germany so far.

Cancel Net Zero: Wind Turbines Cause Ocean Heating

Aerial view of offshore wind turbines standing in the ocean against a clear blue sky.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

Your correspondent’s work is done. Offshore wind farms cause ocean heating, with localised surface sea temperatures rising by a persistent 0.3°C-0.4°C and interannual variability up to 1°C. This is according to ground-breaking calculations made by a group of American scientists and recently published by Science. Cascading effects rippling through eco-systems not only affect sea and atmospheric temperatures but reshape the upper ocean by destabilising marine food supplies and affecting plankton and larval growth. Disruption of the Mid-Atlantic Cold Pool, a key subsurface water mass supporting regional fisheries and ecosystems, can be affected. So, no more ghastly inefficient wind turbines then – if similar fears arose about hydrocarbon extraction, the operation would be shut down quicker than you could say Christopher Gary Packham.

Maybe not. Fracking for natural gas was banned in the UK once activists weaponised fears of ‘earthquakes’ similar in intensity to someone falling off a chair. Different rules apply to wind turbines, despite evidence continuing to accumulate of their destructive ability to rearrange local ecosystems. Builders of the high-speed railway HS2 from London to Birmingham have been forced to spend £100 million to protect a few bats on a 1,000-metre section of the line, but green activists turn a blind eye to the worldwide slaughter of millions of the flying critters by the blades of giant wind turbines. And nobody obsessed with the Net Zero fantasy seems to give a toss when the populations of slow-breeding large raptors – including Golden Eagles, Bald Eagles and the endangered Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle – are decimated.

Imagine if you will the abuse and the likely financial bill given to any non-green industrial enterprise if highly credentialed scientists, including Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Wind Energy Julie Lundquist, publishing in a major academic journal had written something similar to: “Offshore wind farms may induce changes in the upper ocean and near surface atmosphere through coupled ocean-atmosphere feedbacks.”

The scientists calculated their findings by examining multi-year data off the coast of the eastern United States during calmer summer months. It is suggested that large wind turbines reduce nearby surface wave energy which in turn weakens natural and important mixing in the upper ocean. These reductions in ‘wind stress’ caused by the revolving turbine blades are said to lead to sea surface warming of up to 0.4°C and a shallower mixed ocean layer. In plain English, there is no free wind energy that can be harnessed without inconvenient side effects – giant turbines extract cooling energy from the near ocean surface, and this leads to rising water temperatures. All of the resulting effects such as different ocean mixing and stratification, along with atmospheric heat exchanges, alter the delicate local balance of the ecosystem and the structure of aquatic food systems.

Needless to say, this 0.3°C -1°C local warming would count as a ‘heatwave’ or even evidence of ‘boiling’ oceans in activist circles. It is of course true that natural changes in ocean temperatures, often seasonal, occur all the time; temperatures rise and fall on a temporary basis and living organisms from coral to fish have adaptive mechanisms. Wind turbine-induced warming is shown to be permanent and marks a radical change in existing conditions. In addition, reduced wind stress supresses upwelling currents that play a vital part in the life of the ocean by spreading nutrients around. Different types of fish may be attracted to warmer waters, but existing food supplies can be threatened. “Changes in wind stress profiles… may alter wind-driven upwelling circulation, with potential impacts on nutrient delivery and coastal ecosystem dynamics,” the scientists observe.

The Mid Atlantic Cold Pool is a large mass of dense colder bottom water that plays an important ecological part off the eastern US. Wind turbines could put this ecosystem at risk since reduced upwelling and general mixing might cause warming or shrinking with widespread implications for commercial fishing and shellfish. The paper suggests the sea creatures might adapt in some ways to local changes, but in an excellent essay written in Watts Up With That?, Charles Rotter notes: “This is the ecological equivalent of installing dozens of parking lots across a forest and wondering if wildlife will ‘adapt’.”

Or, he might have added, chopping down 100,000 mature Amazon rainforest trees to build a four-lane highway for a two-week environmental conference and hoping the local animals look both ways before crossing the road.

Rotter notes that a 0.3°C-0.4°C warming anchored to industrial infrastructure is not subtle, asking: “How can a technology be sold protecting marine ecosystems if it reorganises them?” You do not fix environmental uncertainty by imposing additional uncertainty, he adds.

Cascading alterations and ecological damage caused by wind turbines are attracting increased scientific and media interest. Not in mainstream media of course, where a blind eye is turned to the increasingly obvious ecological disadvantages and the political lies are peddled that green energy is cheap and capable of powering a modern industrial society. To date, most of the attention has been paid to onshore wind turbines, with a recent paper published by Nature noting that the effect of utility-scale wind energy production, “can be far reaching and sometimes have large and unexpected consequences for biodiversity”.

The scientists found large cascading effects that altered ecosystems and degraded habitats, suggesting: “Perhaps the greatest unknown in predicting future effects of wind power on biodiversity lies in the scope of the potential expansion of the technology and the cumulative consequences of this expansion for species and ecosystems.”

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.

Does the Global Sea-Level Rise Have a Sinusoidal Variation

The question “Why does the Global Sea Level Rise have a sinusoidal variation with a period of about 26 years?” was asked in the comments to one of my papers in 2023. My reply pointed out that the satellite coverage was only 95% and so what was happening in the other 5% may be relevant. In my follow up paper “Measuring and Analysing Sea Levels using Satellites during 2023 – Part 2”. I analysed the Tidal Gauge results of 9 ports in the northern regions of the Atlantic Ocean and above up to the Arctic Ocean.

A scenic view of ocean waves crashing against each other under a bright blue sky filled with fluffy white clouds.

From Watts Up With That?

By Kip Hansen

An Investigation using Tidal Gauge Data Part 1 – Preliminary Analysis

by Dr. Alan Welch FBIS FRAS — 2 December 2025

Note: This paper will be published in two mutually-dependent parts, this part and the second to follow in day or two, depending on the publishing schedule here.

Introduction

Before proceeding another question could be “so what?”. The graph is basically almost linear (R2 = 0.99) with fits using quadratic or sinusoidal adding very little on this. But in 2018 Nerem et al produced their paper concentrating on a quadratic curve, using the small quadratic coefficient to be representative of an acceleration. If they had contained this to the confines of the data all would have been acceptable, but they proceeded to extrapolate for over 80 years and release their paper. The paper as still being used as a reference in many papers each month. Over the 8 years it has been used to create dramatic scenarios of flooded cities and frighten all the children. The investigation of a sinusoidal curve has tried to balance the picture. A point overlooked in using the quadratic curve is that if the calculations had been started in 2008, they would now show a deceleration. What paper would Nerem et al then write?

The paper is in two parts.

Part 1 contains preliminary analyses in which each Tidal Gauge is processed up to the Spectral Analysis stage.

Part 2 carries out Curve Fitting in which residual values (Actual values minus values on a best fit curve) are judged against a curve that is the combination of 2 or 3 sinusoidal curves using peak periods derived from the spectral analyes.

Preliminary Analysis

This study makes more use of Tidal Gauge data than NOAA data but uses Spectral Analysis.

The 9 locations are Reykjavik – Iceland Torshavn – Faroe Islands

Aberdeen – Scotland Lerwick – Scotland Bergen – Norway Barentsberg – Svalbard Narvik – Norway Murmansk – Russia Tiksi – Russia

Only Aberdeen and Bergen have datasets spanning more than 100 years, with Torshavn covering only about 50 years.

Before analysing these 9 ports the results for Brest will be studied as this covers over 210 years although there are a couple of sizeable breaks in data. This work was carried out earlier, but some aspects will be of interest. The data are shown in Figure 1.

Graph illustrating the mean sea level at Brest, France, from 1800 to 2006, showing a trend with fluctuating data points represented in blue, and a smooth green line indicating the overall trend. — **Figure 1**

The usual curve fitting is carried out as shown in Figure 2. Again, possibly excessive precision has been used to be on the safe side. This is not in order to indicate accurate fitting but with possible high values on the “x” axis power terms might need this extra precision.

Graph showing curve fitting analysis for Brest Tidal Gauge data, with plotted black points representing measured sea level data and a green curve indicating the fitted model. — **Figure 2**

A Spectral Analysis was carried out on the data and Figures 3 and 4 show the outcome for long and short periods.

Graph showing the spectral analysis of Brest data, with period years on the x-axis and amplitude on the y-axis. Notable maximum value of 525.87 at a period of 1429 years is highlighted. — **Figure 3**

Graph showing the spectral analysis of Brest data, illustrating amplitude variations over different period years, with labeled peaks for periods of 26.3, 42.8, 54.4, and 76.1 years. — **Figure 4**

Figure 3 indicates a peak (barely a peak) at a period of 1429 years. Most other Tidal Gauges show much higher periods, but it would be interesting to see how sinusoidal curves with periods in the region of 1000 years would compare with the quadratic fit.

Curve fitting was carried out for curves with periods of 1000, 1100 and 1200 years. The equations are shown in Excel Format.

= CONST + AMP * SIN(((SHIFT + 2 * A1)/PERIOD) * PI()) (Equation 1)

CONST	AMP	SHIFT	PERIOD
mm	mm	years	years
7341.5	406.5	1409.0	1000
7371.2	437.5	1575.4	1100
7430.1	496.9	1731.4	1200

Figures 5,6 and 7 compare the quadratic curve with the 3 sinusoidal curves, together with comparisons of slope and acceleration.

Graph comparing different fitted curves for Brest tidal gauge data over the last 240 years, showing quadratic and three sinusoidal curves with periods of 1000, 1100, and 1200 years. — **Figure 5**

Graph showing Brest slopes in mm/year, comparing quadratic fit with sinusoidal curves of 1000, 1100, and 1200 year periods, plotted against time since 1800. — **Figure 6**

Graph showing acceleration in millimeters per year squared with curves representing 1000, 1100, and 1200-year periods alongside a quadratic fit, plotted against date minus 1800. — **Figure 7**

The next part may be good lateral thinking or a bit more La La Land!!

Using the 1200-year curve and extrapolating from 500 BC to 2500 AD results in the following.

Graph depicting Brest Sea Levels over a 1200-year curve, showing periodic fluctuations with key historical periods labeled: Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cold Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Ages. — **Figure 8**

The indicated periods may be arguable. It surprised me that the last Thames Ice Fair occurred as late as 1814. A more worrying interpretation of this graph, if it is remotely indicative, would be that the sea levels (and associated Temperatures) do not peak until about 2450. Could events be as bad as that? How hot were the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods?

Finally with respect to Brest Figure 9 shows the residuals, that is the actual values minus the values on the quadratic curve and Figure 10 the spectral analysis of these residuals.

Scatter plot showing residual values for Brest, measuring deviations from a quadratic curve over years after 1800, with marked axes and data points distributed around zero. — **Figure 9**

Chart showing the spectral analysis of Brest residuals with period years on the x-axis and amplitudes on the y-axis, highlighting dominant periods of 17.1, 28.2, 86.1, and 92.8 years. — **Figure 10**

The periods of the peaks vary from those on the full data spectral analysis, and it is not very easily seen on figure 9 that there may be a decadal oscillation of about 93 years. This was

investigated by creating data files of random values, one set as straightforward random values and one set as random numbers with a standard variation. Many cases were run and figures 11 and 12 show one case from each series.

Scatter plot of random values on the left and a spectral analysis graph on the right, showing frequency response. — **Figure 11**

Scatter plot showing data points and variations over time on the left, and a line graph indicating spectral analysis results on the right. — **Figure 12**

First impressions are a bit worrying as they indicate curves with periods in the range 10 to100 years but closer inspection shows these all have small amplitude (labelled theta on these plots) of about 2 whereas in the actual tidal gauge plots these are between 10 and 30 for the residuals. These Theta values are relative values and do not indicate actual physical values.

(I may not have described the process clearly, and may not have described it correctly, so if anyone out there can help I would be very grateful)

Turning now to the 9 Tidal Gauge datasets they will be considered starting with the longest period of measurement and then in roughly an order of reducing period. But before proceeding the following 9 small figures (in Figure 13) show the outcome of the earlier curve fitting exercise of a 26-year period curve to plots of the residual values, that is the actual values minus the value on the quadratic fit. Whilst a roughly 26-year period curve fits in many positions there is evidence of other, usually, longer period components as can be seen in the Aberdeen plot where a larger 85ish year variation is obvious. The larger spectral analysis peaks will refer to primary modes, but shorter ones may be other primary modes or secondary modes. One problem with these 9 analyses was that the data plotted is a moving average based on 101 data points. With no breaks in data this equates to just over 8 years but as there are several gaps in the data this may distort matters. Averaging removes most of the short-term frequencies and makes it easier to perceive the general form.

Three graphs depicting tidal gauge data analysis, with sinusoidal and quadratic curves overlaid, showing fluctuations in sea level. — **Aberdeen .. Bergen .. Narvik**

A comparison of tidal gauge data featuring three graphs displaying sinusoidal curve fits for the locations of Reykjavik, Murmansk, and Bergen, illustrating fluctuations in sea levels over time. — **Reykjavik .. Murmansk .. Barentsburg**

Three graphs depicting tidal gauge data for locations: Lerwick, Torshavn, and Aberdeen. Each graph shows time series data with green data points, red trend lines, and a grid background. — **Lerwick .. Tiksi .. Torshavn**

Figure 13

Each of the 9 Tidal Gauges will now be looked at showing the initial data from NOAA Web Site, processed data showing best fit quadratic curve, residuals (actual value minus value on best fit curve), spectral analysis plots and tables of results. The tables are basically values from the software’s original use, which was variable star analysis. The first column is Frequency

(1/Period) in cycles per year. Time is the Period at which this Frequency occurs in Years. Theta has been referenced in this paper as Amplitude.

At this stage no curve fitting was carried out as in most cases there are 2 or more peaks. The Amplitudes used on the Spectral Analysis (amp) and the Amplitudes of the Sinusoidal Curves (AMP) have been studied for known multi sinusoidal curves and it has been found that the Amplitudes for a pair of curves, 1 and 2, are related by the equation

AMP2 = AMP1 * SQRT(amp2/ amp1) (Equation 2)

Using this it can be estimated the relative dominance of each curve shown on the Spectral Analysis graphs.

Chart showing mean sea level data for Aberdeen, UK, including a main graph with trend line, NOAA Tidal Gauge Data, and spectral analysis results.

Bergen

Narvik

Narvik (reduced data set)

The data before 1947 has been discarded due to the large gap in readings and the suspicious initial data values close to the beginning of the data.

A series of graphs depicting the Narvik Tidal Gauge data over time, showing a trend line, residuals, and spectral analysis results, alongside data tables for full and residual spectral analysis.

Reykjavik

Murmansk

Barentsburg

Lerwick

Tiksi

Graph showing sea level trends over time with NOAA data, including Tidal Gauge data and residuals analysis. Contains plots for full data, residuals, and spectral analysis results.

Torshavn

Coming Soon:

Having applied spectral analysis to a number of Tidal Gauges, Part 2 will use the findings to derive sinusoidal curves.

Day: December 5, 2025

Affordability Crisis: Gavin Newsom and the California Energy Disaster

Like this:

Sorry, NPR, There Is No Evidence That Climate Change Made Hurricane Melissa Worse for Jamaica

Like this:

Good News: Climate Cult in Decline — The Climate Realism Show #184

Like this:

Half-truths and misinformation on the topic of climate change and the energy transition

Like this:

Claim: Household Bills are Causing Mental Distress – but Recycling More can Help

Like this:

Petrol cars cheaper than EVs after tax raid – unless you have a driveway

Like this:

Climate Extremists Ordered by Hamburg Court to Pay €400,000 In Damages

Like this:

Cancel Net Zero: Wind Turbines Cause Ocean Heating

Like this:

Does the Global Sea-Level Rise Have a Sinusoidal Variation

An Investigation using Tidal Gauge Data Part 1 – Preliminary Analysis

Narvik (reduced data set)

Coming Soon:

Like this: