Day: February 3, 2026

Germany’s Chemical Reckoning: How Europe is Dismantling its Industrial Core

“The Agonising Decline of One of Europe’s Core Industries,” describes Germany’s chemical sector crisis as a symptom of broader self-inflicted industrial decline in Europe.

Energy and environment policy analyst Tilak Doshi argues that Germany’s once-dominant chemical industry- home to giants like BASF and a cornerstone of “Made in Germany” manufacturing- is undergoing an irreversible collapse.

Aerial view of a BASF chemical plant with large industrial structures and smokestacks, featuring a prominent BASF logo and the slogan 'We create chemistry' on a storage tank.

“The Agonising Decline of One of Europe’s Core Industries,” describes Germany’s chemical sector crisis as a symptom of broader self-inflicted industrial decline in Europe.

Energy and environment policy analyst Tilak Doshi argues that Germany’s once-dominant chemical industry- home to giants like BASF and a cornerstone of “Made in Germany” manufacturing- is undergoing an irreversible collapse.

German chemical plants operated at around 70% capacity in 2025—the lowest since 2002 (or even 1991 in some metrics)—well below the ~80-82% needed for profitability.

Production volumes (excluding pharmaceuticals) fell ~2.5% in 2025, with sales down ~3%; forecasts for 2026 show further declines (e.g., volumes -3.5%, prices -2.5%).

Overall EU chemical output remains 6-10% below pre-crisis (2014-2019) levels, with Germany seeing steeper drops (up to 15% in some periods).

Cumulative closures: Europe lost ~37 million tons of capacity from 2022-2025; petrochemicals hit hardest (14% of capacity shuttered).

Major players like BASF have permanently scaled back in Germany (e.g., closing fertilizer/ammonia plants in Ludwigshafen, shifting to Belgium/US/Asia), with thousands of job cuts (BASF alone announced 2,600+ in recent years).

Broader trends: Investments fleeing Europe (three-quarters of German energy-intensive firms shifting abroad), weak demand from autos/construction, and import surges from China.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From Tilak´s Substack

By Tilak Doshi

Aerial view of a 19th-century industrial cityscape featuring factories, chimneys, and a river with boats.
BASF plant in Ludwigshafen, 1881 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BASF_Werk_Ludwigshafen_1881.JPG?uselang=en#Licensing

In its ‘Climate & Energy’ newsletter on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal’s report on Germany’s chemicals industry headlined ‘The Agonising Decline of One of Europe’s Core Industries’ reads less like an industry report than a forensic examination of an industrial autopsy. Once Europe’s formidable manufacturing powerhouse, Germany is now presiding over the steady dismantling of one of its most foundational industries – chemicals – under the combined weight of self-inflicted energy scarcity, climate moralism and geopolitical miscalculation.

In Politico’s view, the auto sector has already assumed the role of Exhibit A in Germany’s economic self-harm. But chemicals – the industry that quite literally underpins modern industrial civilisation – now stands exposed as Exhibit B. The collapse of chemicals manufacturing in Germany will be unsalvageable: when energy costs explode, feedstocks disappear and plants shut, financial investments and physical capital relocate not easily but in an irreversible rupture with previous arrangements.

The Industry That Built Modern Germany and the World

As Vaclav Smil authoritatively established, the four foundational materials of human civilisation are steel, cement, plastics and ammonia. But ammonia is the most fundamental because it sits upstream of life itself rather than merely infrastructure. Through synthetic nitrogen fertilisers enabled by the Haber–Bosch process, ammonia underwrites modern agriculture and thus the food supply for roughly half the world’s population, without which steel mills, concrete cities and plastic goods would be socially meaningless luxuries. A civilisation can endure with less concrete or fewer polymers, but it cannot survive the loss of fixed nitrogen – making ammonia not just an industrial input, but the metabolic backbone of modern human existence.

Germany’s rise as an industrial nation was inseparable from chemistry. Long before automobiles or machine tools defined its export prowess, German scientists and firms were pioneering breakthroughs in dyes, pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and industrial processes that transformed global production. The synthesis of ammonia via the Haber–Bosch process – enabling nitrogen fixation at scale – stands as one of the most consequential technological innovations in human history. It fed billions, powered agricultural productivity and anchored Germany’s early chemical supremacy.

From roughly 1870 to the First World War, the global chemicals industry was overwhelmingly dominated by Germany, with Britain a distant and increasingly worried second and the United States very much a latecomer. In the long arc of industrial capitalism, BASF and Imperial Chemical Industries stand as two of the defining titans of the chemicals revolution that reshaped Europe from the late 19th Century onward.

BASF was founded in 1865 on the banks of the Rhine at Ludwigshafen. Apart from BASF, Germany produced a remarkable constellation of world-leading chemical companies that, together, made the country the unquestioned global centre of industrial chemistry from the late 19th Century through much of the 20th. Founded in 1863, Bayer rose to prominence through synthetic dyes, then pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals. Its most famous early product, aspirin, symbolised the shift from chemistry as craft to chemistry as science-driven mass production. Hoechst (founded 1863) was BASF’s and Bayer’s great peer, excelling in dyestuffs, pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. Britain’s answer to German chemical supremacy arrived later and more defensively. Imperial Chemical Industries was formed in 1926 through the merger of four major British firms, explicitly to counter German dominance in chemicals that had become glaring during the First World War.

Germany’s rise as an industrial power with chemicals as the most important arrow in its quiver was not merely a national success; it was civilisational. Chemistry, more than textiles or steel, became the silent engine of modernity – transforming agriculture, medicine, warfare and manufacturing itself. This was not accidental. German chemical firms amassed deep intellectual property portfolios, established world-leading research laboratories and – somewhat ironically, with the hindsight brought about by the experience of Energiewende (energy transition) – benefited from an abundant supply of domestic sources of coal. For much of the 20th Century, chemicals were not merely another sector; they were the backbone of Germany’s export economy and technological prestige.

Europe as a whole followed a similar trajectory. From fertilisers to pharmaceuticals, polymers to speciality chemicals, the continent built an industrial base that assumed – as a matter of physical necessity – reliable access to low-cost energy. That assumption has now been abandoned. Once coal was displaced by abundant natural gas – first from the North Sea and later, far more decisively, from Russian pipelines – Europe’s energy-intensive chemicals industry achieved its modern scale and global competitiveness, with Germany at its centre. Russian pipeline gas, delivered reliably and at low marginal cost, became the keystone input that allowed European chemical producers to outcompete rivals despite higher labour and regulatory costs.

The rupture came not merely from “market volatility” but from the abrupt loss of that gas – following the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines and the wider sanctions regime – which boomeranged as a structural surge in gas and food prices. That energy shock did not wound German chemicals temporarily; it removed the economic foundation on which the industry had been built, turning decline from a cyclical downturn into a permanent de-industrialisation process.

Chemical manufacturing is among the most energy-intensive activities known to modern economies. Natural gas is not merely a fuel; it is a feedstock, a reagent and an irreplaceable input in the production of ammonia, methanol and countless downstream products. To imagine a competitive chemicals sector without abundant, affordable gas is to imagine steelmaking without iron ore.

Yet Germany’s energy policy has done precisely that. The decision to dismantle nuclear power, throttle domestic fossil fuel production and sanction Russian gas – without credible substitutes – was undertaken as a moral crusade. Energy realism was sacrificed at the altar of climate virtue. The consequences were inevitable.

Energy prices surged far above those faced by competitors in the United States and the Middle East. Margin compression became chronic. Production cuts turned into permanent closures. Once massive chemical plants shut, they do not reopen. Capital is mobile; sunk costs are not. In chemistry, as elsewhere in the natural world, thermodynamics always wins. You cannot legislate away input costs.

Sanctions, Self-Harm and the Fertiliser Exception

The geopolitical dimension of Germany’s predicament only deepens the absurdity. Europe’s sanctions regime against Russia was implemented with moral fervour but economic naivety. Natural gas flows were severed without a replacement strategy that acknowledged scale, reliability or price. In the event, US LNG imports, at least three to four times more expensive than Russian piped gas, proved to be an expensive and partial substitute.

Even Brussels recognised the limits of ideological purity. Despite the sanctions, the EU remains a significant customer for Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG), having imported approximately €7.2 billion worth in 2025 despite plans to ban such imports by 2027. Russian fertiliser exports were quietly exempted from sanctions – an implicit admission that agricultural collapse is not a price voters will tolerate. Fertilisers are not optional; they are existential. The exemption stands as a tacit confession that Europe’s energy and industrial strategy is riddled with contradictions.

If fertilisers cannot be sanctioned because crops would fail, why was the upstream gas supply so casually sacrificed? The answer, of course, lies not in economics but in political symbolism. Fertiliser scarcity would have directly produced visible hunger. Chemical plant closures produce quieter decay – job losses, hollowed regions and de-industrialised supply chains.

Markets, unlike governments, respond to incentives rather than narratives. Faced with punitive energy costs and regulatory hostility, Europe’s chemical giants have begun relocating capital abroad. The United States, with its shale gas abundance and comparatively pragmatic industrial policy, has emerged as a prime destination. So too have parts of the Middle East, where feedstock costs reflect geological reality rather than moral aspiration.

The symbolism of Europe’s flagship chemical firms investing billions overseas while shuttering domestic plants should not be underestimated. This is not offshoring in search of marginal gains. It is capital flight from a policy environment that has rendered large-scale chemical production uneconomic. The Oxford Economics analysis cited in industry reports is blunt: chemicals are a keystone sector. Their decline cascades through pharmaceuticals, construction materials, agriculture and consumer goods.

Between 2019 and 2025 Q2, the European chemical sector’s output declined significantly. It has contracted by 30% in the UK, 18% in Germany, 12% in France and 7% in Belgium. Output levels have been hit by reduced price competitiveness due to higher gas and electricity prices than elsewhere, higher environmental and other regulatory costs and excess global capacity, largely driven by China.

Europe’s climate agenda increasingly functions as industrial policy in reverse. Carbon pricing, emissions trading and regulatory constraints are imposed domestically with little regard for global competitiveness. Production migrates to jurisdictions with lower costs and weaker constraints, often resulting in higher global emissions – the very outcome climate policy claims to oppose.

This is not merely a technical flaw. It is a conceptual failure. Policymakers conflate decarbonisation targets with economic strategy, assuming that “green” innovation will materialise on command and that intermittent renewables can substitute for dense, dispatchable energy at industrial scale. Chemistry exposes this fantasy mercilessly.

Europe’s Silent Unravelling

Germany’s predicament is not accidental. It is the logical outcome of deliberate choices. Nuclear phase-out, gas dependency without diversification, sanctions without contingency and climate regulation without competitiveness safeguards together constitute a blueprint for de-industrialisation. The tragedy is that this is unfolding in a country that once understood industrial ecosystems intimately. Germany knew that manufacturing excellence rested on ready access to energy resources, technical skill and export competitiveness. Today, it lectures the world on sustainability while dismantling the very industries that made its prosperity possible.

Europe more broadly is following the same path. High-energy industries are labelled “hard to abate” – bureaucratic shorthand for “politically inconvenient”. Instead of confronting physical realities, policymakers outsource production and import finished goods, congratulating themselves on territorial emissions reductions while global emissions rise.

The most sobering aspect of chemical industry decline is its irreversibility. Blast furnaces can sometimes be relit; vast chemical complexes rarely are. The specialised workforce disperses. Supply chains fracture. Intellectual capital migrates. Skilled communities hollow out. This is why industry warnings carry such urgency. Once Europe relinquishes large-scale chemical manufacturing, it forfeits strategic autonomy across medicine, food, defence materials and related advanced materials technologies. Dependence replaces resilience.

The WSJ’s reporting captures only the surface of this unravelling. Beneath it lies a deeper malaise: Europe has lost faith in its own industrial vocation. It prefers to regulate rather than produce, to moralise rather than compete. Yet the world does not pause for European introspection. The United States under the Trump administration is focused on re-industrialising with its energy dominance agenda along with tariff policy. Asia and the Middle East continue to expand capacity.

Europe alone seems determined to prove that prosperity can survive without production. It cannot.

Germany’s chemical reckoning is therefore not a sectoral story but a civilisational one. It illustrates what happens when political elites elevate symbolic virtue over material competence, when policy is shaped by narratives rather than real constraints and when energy is treated as an ethical problem rather than an economic necessity. The country’s chemical industry once symbolised the triumph of science, industry and energy harnessed in service of human progress. Its current decline symbolises something else entirely: the delusional triumph of ideology over physics and economics among policy elites. And, as ever, the twin disciplines will have the final word. As will chemistry.

This article was first published in the Daily Sceptic https://dailysceptic.org/2026/02/02/germanys-chemical-reckoning-how-europe-is-dismantling-its-industrial-core/

Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.

A group of men in formal attire stands solemnly in front of an industrial landscape, featuring tall smoke stacks and parked cars, under overcast skies.

Celebrating Paris Climate Agreement at Ten? (postmodernism in action)

“[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words…. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” (James Hansen, The Guardian, December 12, 2015)

A gravestone commemorating the Paris Climate Agreement, inscribed with 'PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT 2015 - 2025' and flanked by decorative vases with flowers, set in a grassy landscape.

From The Master Resource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words…. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.” (James Hansen, The Guardian, December 12, 2015)

Jean Boissinot is one disagreeable French fellow. My exchanges with him on social media (see here and here) are less than polite on his side, mixing sarcasm and insults (I might have dementia, he says) amid his (debatable) points. But when he argues success in the face of failure (as predicted by the father of climate alarmism above), perhaps it is time to rest my case.

Two individuals sitting at a table with books in front of them, smiling at the camera.

Boissinot’s celebration post about Paris 10 follows:

About yesterday – on the occasion of the day to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement organized in Académie du Climat by the Fondation PARC – Paris Agreement Research Commons and the Collège des Directeurs du Développement Durable (C3D).

🎂

 Thank you to the organizers (Stéphane VOISIN, Quitterie Lasserre ) for taking the time to create this moment. 

🎤

 Thank you to Anne-Catherine Husson-Traore for assembling its bouquets of speakers. 

🫶

 Thank you to all those who, on stage and at the microphone or backstage, shared their memories of the “making of” of COP21. 

📖

 Thank you to the readers of “Green Finance” (the 1st and 2nd editions) – it’s always a pleasure to exchange with you!

✍️

 And thank you to my fellow signers, especially Sylvianne VILLAUDIERE, especially for this very improbable double Dunod (Marie-Cécile de Vienne, Ludivine L., Garance M., Delphine Levêque, Eglantine Assez, Adeline Coffinier ) – and a friendly nod to the booksellers who made it possible despite, in short… (librairie et éditions Utopia )

Celebration? For what exactly?

Confirmation bias is certainly present as the true believers grasp at any good news and sugarcoat the bad. Such is the nature of a failing crusade, when it is otherwise time to question assumptions and acknowledge energy and political reality. As I stated in a previous post:

It’s a funny, scary time in the climate alarmist camp. Once-favorable economic and political trends are going the other way in the U.S. and increasingly in the world. What to do? Literally thousands of climate-issue employees (grifters?) need to find alternative employment, almost all in net-positive (CO2) industries where value is being created rather than redistributed and lost. Big Money Green will keep —–priming the pump for many, however, so a base of false-green advocacy will remain.

Will Jean Boissinot et al. change their mind? Can they with all the emotional and financial capital invested in a failing worldview? Human betterment requires fossil fuels, not wind/solar/batteries. Here’s to open minds at the current inflection point. There are signs aplenty, beginning with politics and continuing with (pragmatic) business and ending with the great middle (citizen voters) unmoved by climate alarmism relative to other issues.

—————–

Other Paris Climate Agreement posts at MasterResource:

Utility Scale Lithium Based Energy Storage Systems

This post was put together by Roger Caiazza to describe a recently completed white paper by Richard Ellenbogen M.E.E. titled The Intrinsic Danger of Siting Utility Scale Lithium Based Energy Storage Systems In Densely Populated Areas.  Ellenbogen and I collaborated on an article about the potential impacts of a fire like the Moss Battery Plant fire if it were to occur in New York City. 

A row of energy storage units situated in an open area with a city skyline in the background, featuring modern skyscrapers under a clear blue sky.

Watts Up With That?

Richard Ellenbogen

A panoramic view of a vast landscape lined with rows of rectangular structures, under a cloudy sky with the sun rising in the background.

This post was put together by Roger Caiazza to describe a recently completed white paper by Richard Ellenbogen M.E.E. titled The Intrinsic Danger of Siting Utility Scale Lithium Based Energy Storage Systems In Densely Populated Areas.  Ellenbogen and I collaborated on an article about the potential impacts of a fire like the Moss Battery Plant fire if it were to occur in New York City.  This report finds that the local conditions at the proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at 220 Rabro Drive, Hauppauge, NY would magnify the impacts of a BESS fire in Nassau and Suffolk counties.  The following two sections are lightly edited direct quotes from the report.

Executive Summary

This report was written at the request of the Hauppauge Fire Department because of their concerns about a proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility at 111 Rabro Drive. This would be located within 3500 feet of an elementary school, a much less than ideal siting for such a volatile and potentially dangerous facility.

Research on that issue revealed, in addition, that the proposed location is close to streams and has a high-water table. In a location with these characteristics, a lithium-ion battery fire, of the type that frequently has occurred at BESS facilities, could produce long-term, catastrophic environmental damage. This is in addition to the more immediate, very serious threat to people and structures at the school and in nearby neighborhoods from heat and toxic gases in the event of a fire. The body of this report explains these threats in detail and also provides background that shows why the occurrence of fire at a BESS facility, like the one proposed, presents such a high level of risk. The readers should be aware in reading this report, that the author received no compensation or payment in kind for the research and writing, but willingly invested the hundreds of hours of work required for its preparation strictly as a result of his great concern for the Hauppauge community, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the downstate region, and the State of New York in general, inspired by the high level of threat and risk arising from the proposed BESS facility. The report is designed to be read on a network connected device and is arranged with hyperlinks providing backup documentation for each issue should readers wish to learn more about the statements made within.

Introduction

Utility scale electrical energy storage has been a recognized need in the New York Metropolitan Area for over sixty years. For example, Con Ed first proposed the Storm King Mountain Pumped Storage facility in the early 1960’s to address this. However, that facility was never built because of potentially negative environmental impacts and community opposition. However, the need for energy storage has not gone away and has recently been exacerbated by a growing trend toward electrification to reduce carbon emissions, along with several years of state energy policies that have left the New York state critically short of electric generation.

The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) recently released their 2025 – 2034 Reliability Study that determined that electric generation capacity margins could go below zero as early as 2027 with the risk increasing even more each year through 2034. Figure 1 from page 10 of that document clearly shows the problem.

This crisis has resulted from state policies, many associated with New York’s Climate Leadership & Community Protection Act (CLCPA), that have blocked the construction or retooling of new gas generation plants for the past seven years, while simultaneously closing a 2-Gigawatt nuclear plant without having a viable operating alternative to replace the lost energy. As a result, NY State officials are moving hastily to find solutions to bridge the gaps. Among these hasty measures, the consequences of which do not seem to have been carefully thought out, is the proposed development and addition to its electrical grid of a number of lithium-ion-battery-based electrical energy storage facilities. To expedite this process, these officials have been attempting to override local zoning laws and their own Department of Environmental Conservation, via the six-year-old Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES).

One of these hastily conceived and poorly thought through BESS facilities is proposed for Long Island, within the town of Islip, in Suffolk County. This siting of an intrinsically dangerous BESS facility, in such a densely populated and environmentally sensitive area, having a high-water table and close proximity to many streams and the ocean, would seem to defy logic. This is especially true given the very recent catastrophic history of a similar BESS siting at Moss Landing, near Monterey Bay in California.

Graph illustrating the plausible range of statewide system margins from 2026 to 2034, featuring summer margin range in red and winter margin range in blue, with high and low-end margin envelopes indicated.
Figure 1
Plausible Range of Statewide System Generation Margins 2025 – 2034. Source: NYISO 11/2025

Whatever help a BESS facility in Islip might promise for the NY state electrical grid is certainly offset by the risks of such a move and the likelihood of accidents with long-term very negative consequences that would impact millions of people and large geographic areas of the state and its waters. These risks follow from three categories of intrinsic dangerous characteristics of lithium-ion batteries and the large number of them housed within a BESS facility. These categories of risks are as follows:

  • Lithium metal, when brought into contact with any water, creates an exothermic reaction that generates a great deal of heat which can drive the batteries into a state of thermal runaway. So, Li-ion batteries and BESS facilities that contain them are very subject to fires, especially if they are located near large bodies of water and exposed to significant humidity or moisture. Lithium Batteries can also burst into flame if they overheat and enter thermal runaway under heavy load.
  • Li-ion battery fires are very hot and damaging. They burn at temperatures between 2600 – 5000 degrees-F making these fires, even small ones, very difficult and costly to put out, even if a fire department is well-prepared, which most are not. These fires spread rapidly within a BESS facility, quickly resulting in a conflagration. In addition to the great heat from them, there is release of toxic gases during the fires.
  • In the aftermath of large-scale Li-ion battery fires, there is significant, nearly impossible to remediate environmental pollution of land and water with heavy metals and other toxins. This will be particularly damaging in areas with surface water or a high-water table, and particularly on Long Island which has a history of water issues and highly permeable soil.

Sections of this report explain in detail, with reference to each of these risk categories, why siting utility-scale lithium battery facilities in densely populated areas, like Nassau and Suffolk Counties, is a problem, in general. Also, it will be detailed why this is made especially problematic in coastal areas because of the hydrology and soil composition in this part of Long Island, as well as its proximity to the ocean.

Report Sections

The report has four sections: The issues with lithium storage, the aftermath of Moss Landing, negative impacts of ingesting heavy metals, and groundwater leaching issues on Long Island.  I summarized Ellenbogen’s main points below and refer you to the report for more details. 

There are substantive issues associated with lithium energy storage systems.  It is necessary to keep water away from the batteries because lithium is volatile in the presence of water.  Water causes lithium batteries to overheat and enter thermal runaway and catch fire.  These fires are not unusual.  Appendix 1 has a list of the fires, locations, and dates along with a link to the EPRI Battery Storage Fire Database. Once started the fires are so difficult to extinguish that they must left to burn out but during a fire there is release of toxic gases. To reduce the spread of the fire water is used to cool nearby batteries. As a result, in the aftermath of Li-ion battery fires, there is significant heavy metal and other toxin pollution of land and water from the smoke and water used to control the fire.

In another section Ellenbogen describes the aftermath of a BESS fire at Moss Landing California.  On January 16, 2025, the Moss Landing 300 Megawatt – 1200 Megawatt-Hour Vistra BESS facility caught fire.  A description of the fire and its aftermath is provided in Appendix 2.  He explains that researchers from San Jose State had been working in the marshes around Moss Landing since 2018 and had measurements of the levels of certain chemicals in the ground and water around the BESS Site for at least two years prior to the battery fire. Their research on the effects of the fire on the ground and marshes around the BESS Site appear in the document Coastal wetland deposition of cathode metals from the world’s largest lithium-ion battery fire. It is also attached as Appendix 3.  Ellenbogen includes the following quote from the paper:

The 2025 fire at the Moss Landing, California, battery energy storage system (BESS)—the world’s largest—released approximately 55,000 pounds (25 metric tons) of toxic cathode metals (nickel, manganese, cobalt) into surrounding Elkhorn Slough coastal wetlands. This airborne particulate matter formed a thin, widespread layer (<<5 mm) in surface soils, creating a “fingerprint” of the NMC-type batteries.

• Environmental Impact: The metals, particularly cobalt and manganese, are toxic to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. They pose risks to the ecosystem by potentially bioaccumulating through the food chain, from small invertebrates to shellfish, crabs, and top predators like sea otters.

• Fate of Contaminants: While initially settling in the soil, heavy metals have been mobilized into the estuary through tidal action and rain, spreading the risk beyond the initial deposition zone.

• Detection and Monitoring: Researchers from San Jose State University’s Moss Landing Marine Laboratories utilized field-portable X-ray fluorescence (FpXRF) to map the contamination.

• Long-Term Concerns: The long-term impacts on the restored tidal marsh ecosystem are under investigation, as the contaminants may cause lasting, subtle damage to the food web.

Ellenbogen also included a section describing the negative impacts of ingesting heavy metals contained in Lithium-Ion batteries.  He used an AI search to ask which health effects are linked to nickel, manganese, and cobalt exposure in soil and water from BESS fire runoff over extremely porous soil with a shallow aquifer.  The response explained: that exposure to nickel, manganese, and cobalt from battery fire runoff in porous soil and shallow aquifers heightens risks due to rapid leaching into groundwater, amplifying ingestion and dermal contact pathways. These metals, common in lithium-ion batteries, can contaminate drinking water and crops, leading to bioaccumulation in the food chain. Health agencies like Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry note that such scenarios mirror industrial pollution patterns where soil pH and redox conditions accelerate mobility.

In his final section Ellenbogen describes the particular issues of local conditions at the proposed large Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility on Long Island, NY.  Long Island is a terminal moraine formed during from the melting of the Laurentide ice sheet, specifically the Wisconsin Glacier, around 60,000 years ago.  Ellenbogen explains that Long Island has a long history of water quality issues due to the resulting porous soils and its shallow aquifer which is used to provide its drinking water. A history of Long Island environmental advocacy, initiated by water quality concerns, appears here. There are numerous instances of specialized treatment being given to Long Island regarding chemicals that can leach into the aquifer. A history of chemical bans on Long Island can be found in Appendix 4. His report includes maps of aquifer depths that show that if a fire occurred at the proposed location that it would cause problems from the heavy metals.

Conclusion

Ellenbogen’s conclusion notes that he has no monetary interest either way in Lithium Storage technologies. He views the issue entirely from a perspective of, “Would he want one of these facilities near him based upon what he knows, and if not, why not?”   his analysis leads him to clearly believe that he would not want one located near him.

He believes that if you combine the hazardous emissions and the potential environmental damage, it becomes apparent that the suitable locations for these types of systems have to be restricted to areas where there are very few people and no surface water or ground water. Anything less than that will lead to a high probability of increased public health issues.

Ellenbogen is the President [BIO] of Allied Converters and frequently copies me on emails that address various issues associated with the New York Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act). I have published other articles by Ellenbogen including a description of his keynote address to the Business Council of New York 2023 Renewable Energy Conference Energy titled: “Energy on Demand as the Life Blood of Business and Entrepreneurship in the State -video here:  Why NY State Must Rethink Its Energy Plan and Ten Suggestions to Help Fix the Problems”. He comes to the table as an engineer who truly cares about the environment and as an early adopter of renewable technologies at both his home and business two decades ago.

Sorry, Los Angeles Times, Coastal Highway 1 Has Always Suffered from Weather, Not Climate

The Los Angeles Times (LAT) posted an article, “California’s iconic Highway 1 is fighting a losing battle against climate change. Can it survive?” claiming recent landslide damage to portions of Highway 1 is further evidence that climate change is ruining civil infrastructure. This is false. Weather and natural disasters have always damaged highways, especially along the famously violent Pacific Coast.

A scenic view of a sandy beach with people relaxing, sunbathing, and swimming, backed by lush hills and coastal buildings under a clear blue sky.

From Climate Realism

By Linnea Lueken

Aerial view of a coastline with waves gently crashing on the sandy shore, alongside a road with cars driving by.

The Los Angeles Times (LAT) posted an article, “California’s iconic Highway 1 is fighting a losing battle against climate change. Can it survive?” claiming recent landslide damage to portions of Highway 1 is further evidence that climate change is ruining civil infrastructure. This is false. Weather and natural disasters have always damaged highways, especially along the famously violent Pacific Coast.

The LAT admits that “turbulent climate always has been the nemesis of Highway 1’s splendor,” listing landslides, flooding, wildfires, and coastal erosion as frequent causes of damage to the picturesque highway. A recent closure “raises new questions about how the highway can survive amid increasingly strong and unpredictable storms, seas, and fires.” They attribute this to “the intensifying effects of human-caused climate change.”

The problem is storms, seas, and fires are not becoming stronger and more unpredictable due to climate change. They are not becoming stronger or less predictable at all.

The LAT’s claim that there are “wetter, more volatile atmospheric river storms that trigger landslides,” is simply false. Atmospheric rivers are not new, as Climate Realism has had to explain to the LAT in the past, like in the post “No, Los Angeles Times, Climate Change Is Not ‘Supercharging’ the Latest Winter Storm,” among others.

California’s pattern of drought and deluge is not historically unusual; it is the norm. Massive swings between large flooding events and long-lasting drought have happened in California for as long as records exist.

It is true that warmer air can hold more moisture, which is the basis of most alarmist claims that rainfall is becoming more severe. But data reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not show any increase in severe rainfall events, as shown in table 12.12 on Page 90 – Chapter 12, of their Sixth Assessment Report. (See figure below)

A chart displaying various climatic impact-driver types, categorized into heat and cold, wet and dry, wind, snow and ice, coastal, open ocean, and other. The chart highlights the historical status and future projections of different climate-related factors, such as extreme heat, heavy precipitation, coastal erosion, and more, with designated categories and emerging threats.

Also highlighted on that screenshot is another point that LAT tries to make, which is that climate change is making coastal erosion worse. This is simply not demonstrated by any data, and how would it be? Coastal erosion is ongoing everywhere in the world, and the Pacific Coast is particularly prone to violent waves. This is because of the long “fetch” of the Pacific Ocean, which means wind has longer distances to push up large waves uninterrupted, but also because of the steep continental shelf. Pacific coastlines, especially in California, have steep drop-offs to deep water, which make them famously good for surfing.

Steeper drop-offs allow waves to stay larger as they approach the beach, compared to the gradual slope of the beaches in places like South Carolina, and the existence of deep trenches along the coast can also contribute to massive, powerful waves.

The erosion along Highway 1 is what gives the road its magnificent views in the first place. Water is the most powerful erosive force on the planet. Those bare face cliffs have been formed by the violence of ocean waves over centuries and millennia, as are similar geologic features of coastlines around the world. It’s not new. Building a highway right on one of the most volatile areas in the region is something that will necessarily come with a lot of upkeep. The California coastline is also famously prone to earthquakes, which contribute to the erosion as well.

The writers at LAT apparently are either oblivious to the fact that California’s coastal infrastructure has always suffered from erosion and failures, or, contrary to the evidence, they have chosen to ignore this fact in pursuit of the “climate change causes everything bad” narrative. One prime example comes from the 1920s, when a developer built beautiful bungalows along the coastline in San Pedro, Los Angeles. By 1929, the homes began sliding into the sea, as the ocean waves undermined the rock and clay cliff face. Climate change did not do this; the natural actions of coastal erosion did.

The LAT also says wildfires are burning “hotter” and becoming worse, creating the conditions needed for later mudslides, because of climate change. This is again, false. The LAT provides no data supporting this claim, because there are none. Climate Realism has covered California’s fire history in depth in several articles, including posts here, here, and here. A combination of factors, especially mismanagement of the land and the government refusing to clear easily flammable underbrush and deadfall, have led to California’s worst modern fires, but again they are not historically unprecedented. Wildfires are part of the natural ecosystem.

The LAT seems to be blaming climate change for the natural dangers posed to Highway 1 because of its placement along an extremely active coastline. California’s history is littered with examples of seaside infrastructure being slowly (or quickly) destroyed by the pitiless ocean, long before supposed human-caused global warming could be blamed.

Neither storms nor wildfires have measurably worsened during the recent period of modest warming. If LAT was interested in the truth, they would report on the fact that coastal infrastructure takes a lot of upkeep naturally, and that maybe some types of structures, say highways and palatial mansions, shouldn’t be built in some locations historically prone to certain types of natural disasters. When nature is nature and manmade structures fail as a result, blame human decisions for siting those structures there, not nature for behaving as it always has or claim that nature has changed, when it hasn’t.

Davos sours on climate policies (ft. Climate Depot’s Marc Morano)

In Episode 539 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes ClimateDepot editor Marc Morano to recap his trip to the recent World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland. The mood was different this year, as climate alarmism takes a backseat at the annual confab. The Trump administration took center stage at the event, and climate activists like Al Gore were afterthoughts. Tune in to learn more.

A split-screen image featuring two speakers discussing net-zero climate policies. On the left is a man with dark hair and a black blazer, and on the right is a woman wearing glasses and headphones. The backdrop includes an outdoor setting with greenery and a building in the distance.

From CFACT

By Gabriella Hoffman

“Al Gore gave a speech about climate refugees and millions and blah, blah, and it was just boring. No one paid attention.

He could have given the same speech [in] 2005 ,2010, 2015. In fact, he did give the same speech, and he was reduced.

The only news Al Gore got out, I think you know, is the answer. Howard Lutnik, the Commerce Secretary. He [Al Gore] was reduced to booing a speaker at the World Economic Forum.

Al Gore’s entire media clip. So, this event was him booing a Trump administration speaker at the World Economic Forum in Davos. That’s how low the mighty have fallen, of course.

And I mentioned at COP 30 he was calling Bill Gates silly and being bullied by Donald Trump…I never thought Bill Gates would be attacked by Al Gore. So that’s what this meeting was like.

They did have a climate hub, but it was very just tiny, sort of [an] afterthought.

There were other things. I think it was down two thirds any climate panels or discussion titles with the word title climate or net zero in it.” — Marc Morano, publisher of ClimateDepot.com

In Episode 539 of District of Conservation, Gabriella welcomes ClimateDepot editor Marc Morano to recap his trip to the recent World Economic Forum conference in Davos, Switzerland. The mood was different this year, as climate alarmism takes a backseat at the annual confab. The Trump administration took center stage at the event, and climate activists like Al Gore were afterthoughts. Tune in to learn more.

Watch on YouTube

EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust – District of Conservation

In Episode 579 of District of Conservation, Gabriella discusses the permitting reform bill – aka BAAJA – that is gaining traction in Congress now. The Senate will hold a cloture vote starting at 3:30pm ET in a motion to proceed. Gabriella discusses the status quo without permitting reform, how BAAJA is good for the environment and affordability. Tune in!SHOW NOTESBipartisan Policy Center: BAAJA ExplainerEstimating the US Energy System Impacts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act
  1. EP 579: BAAJA Blast: Permitting Reform or Bust
  2. EP 578: Midterms, CO Amendment 83, Disneyland Goes Electric
  3. EP 577: Kaylyn Glenn – Florida Gladeswoman & Conservationist
  4. EP 576: Chiricahua National Park & Energy Security Index
  5. EP 575: Menhaden Madness (ft. Whit Fosburgh, Forage Fish Campaign)

Time: US Snow Storms and the Australian Heat Wave are Both Global Warming

Last week my family enjoyed a BBQ with friends at a seaside park on the beautiful Fraser Coast. But apparently are all suffering a climate catastrophe.

A dramatic landscape featuring a swirling tornado, striking lightning, and a turbulent sea crashing against icy cliffs, all beneath a moody, cloud-filled sky.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

Text-based graphic discussing climate claims, contrasting perceptions of the Little Ice Age with current views on global warming and extreme weather.

Last week my family enjoyed a BBQ with friends at a seaside park on the beautiful Fraser Coast. But apparently are all suffering a climate catastrophe.

JAN 31, 2026 7:23 AM AET

Snow Storms in North America. A Record Heat Wave in Australia. Is This Climate Change?

by Simmone Shah
REPORTER

Extreme weather events are battering both ends of the world this week. In the U.S., Winter Storm Fern set snow records in parts of the country last weekend, quickly followed by one of the longest cold-air outbreaks in decades. A bomb cyclone is expected to hit the southeast over the weekend. Across the globe in southern Australia, a heat dome is setting records, with temperatures reaching 120°F—the most severe heat waves the country has experienced in 16 years. 

It’s difficult to outright blame climate change for any one specific weather event, but as our planet warms, it could mean that extremes of all kinds, occurring at the same time around the world, could become the norm. 

From hot days to snow storms, hurricanes and droughts, extreme weather events have always been natural. “We’ve had extreme weather as long as we have records of weather information,” says Lackmann. But research shows that climate change is making them more frequent and intense. “What we’re finding is that the intensity and the frequency of the most extreme events is certainly likely to have the DNA of climate change,” says Marshall Shepherd, director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society. 

What remains clear is that frigid temperatures and piles of snow by no means disproves climate change. “People will say things like, ‘Hey, it’s snowing. That must mean there’s no such thing as global warming.’” says Shepherd. “I said, ‘No, that just means it’s January in the wintertime.’”

…Read more: https://time.com/7362792/snow-north-america-australia-heat-wave-climate/

If global warming causes unusually hot AND unusually cold weather, what does global cooling cause? Abnormally normal weather?

Actually, we know the answer to what the weather is like when the world cools, and the answer is not good.

A climate of conflict: How the little ice age sparked rebellions and revolutions across Europe

Author links open overlay panel

David Kaniewski a 1, Nick Marriner b 1, Frédéric Luce a, Morgane Escarpe a, Majid Pourkerman c, Thierry Otto a

Highlights

  • •A study based on 140 rebellions and revolutions during the Little Ice Age.
  • •Climate impacted livelihoods, causing poor harvests and higher grain prices.
  • •Led to malnutrition, which increased people’s vulnerability.
  • •Climate did not generate crises but sowed the seeds for uprisings.

Abstract

The Little Ice Age (LIA) – lasting from ∼1250 to ∼1860 – was a long period of cooler, drier conditions, characterized by increased climate instability. The most significant climate extremes were more closely associated with interannual temperature variations or particularly severe, isolated cold spells than with prolonged cold spells lasting many years.

During this pre-industrial phase of climate instability, many rebellions broke out, one of the most famous being the French Revolution of 1789.

A key question, however, relates to the precise and often intricate role of climate in precipitating these widespread uprisings and rebellions that profoundly reshaped human institutions, particularly in the European context.

Using data for solar activity, temperature, precipitation, volcanic forcing and the evolution of grain prices, we compared and contrasted the occurrence of rebellions and revolutions across a wide geographical area comprising Europe-Russia-Ottoman Empire with LIA climate and hazards.

We find that climate change primarily affected people’s livelihoods by reducing harvests, lowering food-resource availability and sharply increasing cereal prices. 

Climate therefore played a major role in heightening population vulnerability by exacerbating one of the greatest scourges: malnutrition. 

For the populace, this fuelled social anger towards political authorities for failing to mitigate the impact of climate change. This study primarily reveals that environmental causes did not generate social crises during the LIA but rather triggered a cascade of environmental and human events that interacted, ultimately leading to highly conflictual situations.

The LIA serves as a warning to modern political systems, highlighting the necessity to anticipate the consequences of current climate change to mitigate its impact on societies and prevent social unrest and conflict.

…Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818125003479

Given the Little Ice Age was a period of dreadful weather and unstable climatic conditions, and global warming is supposed to bring dreadful weather and unstable climatic conditions, are climate alarmists seriously expecting us to believe the current climate, or perhaps the climate of a hundred years ago, was the perfect balance?

How unlikely is it that out of all the Earth’s climate epochs, through the Earth’s long climate history, we just happen to be living through the century of climate perfection?

Doesn’t it seem more likely if cooler global temperatures bring horrible weather, warmer global temperatures will bring better weather?

We do have paleo evidence warm conditions are more benign. Our monkey ancestors thrived in the hothouse world of the PETM, 5-8C hotter than today. They colonised much of Northern Europe and Russia, only retreating from their new homes when the cold returned.

Fish also thrived during the PETM.

I’m not suggesting weather is a long linear continuum of warmer = better weather across all possible global temperatures, but the alarmist suggestion that we happen to live in a narrow turning point of perfection is absurd.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I don’t see anyone providing evidence to support the implicit claim that our current climate state, or the climate state of the recent past, is the perfect state we should aspire to.

Beat global warming – go out and buy things

Mainstream environmental sources (UN, PBS, NPR, academic studies) push the opposite message: consumption is a primary driver of emissions (production, transport, waste), so the most effective path is buying less repair more, choose second- hand, support responsible companies, and reduce overall throughput. Individual “green shopping” can’t outpace systemic overconsumption.
Western countries (like the UK or Germany) aggressively push de-industrialization, high energy costs, and restrictions on domestic production to cut “their” emissions.
But everyday consumer goods (shoes, batteries, lamps, electronics, clothes) are simply imported from places like China, where manufacturing is far more carbon-intensive (coal-heavy grids, fewer environmental controls).

A cluttered marketplace scene with a variety of products, including shoes, clothing, and household items, set against a backdrop of heavy industrial smoke rising from smokestacks.

Mainstream environmental sources (UN, PBS, NPR, academic studies) push the opposite message: consumption is a primary driver of emissions (production, transport, waste), so the most effective path is buying less repair more, choose second- hand, support responsible companies, and reduce overall throughput. Individual “green shopping” can’t outpace systemic overconsumption.

Western countries (like the UK or Germany) aggressively push de-industrialization, high energy costs, and restrictions on domestic production to cut “their” emissions.

But everyday consumer goods (shoes, batteries, lamps, electronics, clothes) are simply imported from places like China, where manufacturing is far more carbon-intensive (coal-heavy grids, fewer environmental controls).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A cluttered urban environment featuring various items such as clothing, electronics, and household goods in the foreground, with smoke billowing from industrial factories in the background.

From The Conservative Woman

By Ivor Williams

A cluttered display of various items, including clothing, cans, and electronics, set against the backdrop of an industrial landscape emitting thick black smoke from smokestacks.

Yeah, it’s a loaf of bread just out of the oven, still in its tin and a symbol of a particularly ridiculous aspect of emissions reduction. I guarantee surprise, anger and a certain amount of rueful head-shaking when I explain.

You may have wondered about the many contradictions in our daily life that are so obvious that no one seems to see them. The elephants in the room are so numerous and so big we’ve got used to seeing the view only between their legs. For instance: we poor folk in the UK are being dragged painfully and expensively towards an era of emission-free electricity generation by 2030.

Translation: no coal, oil or gas. By then your life will depend on the wind always blowing, the sun always shining, on hundreds of miles of new pylons, more wind and solar farms, a vast quantity of huge-capacity batteries in or near all towns and cities, and lots of money from a government already spending too much on everything else. Nuclear will not be ready, and even when it is it won’t be anything like enough for full-scale backup. Maybe we should focus on the elephants.

China produces half its energy from coal. It also throws out one third of global greenhouse gas emissions, is second to the US in oil consumption, and third behind the US and Russia for gas. Its energy policies have always been geared towards providing constant, cheap and reliable power. That is why it now manufactures much of what we used to do ourselves.

I went shopping last August and bought a Lakeland stand mixer, a desk lamp and a DAB radio. All made in China.

India uses coal for three-quarters of its electricity generation. This is another country which understands the need for cheap, constant and reliable energy. It is one of the world’s largest coal producers.

I went shopping last September and bought a bird feeder, a slow cooker and some garlic. All made or grown in China.

In the United States over half their power comes from coal and gas, natural gas production is at record levels, and Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) exports will double by 2030.

I went shopping last October and bought a pair of shoes, some Boots batteries and a John Lewis lamp. All made in China.

Germany is the fourth biggest user of coal, generating over 40 per cent of its power from that plus gas mostly imported from the USA.

I went shopping last November and bought a Russell Hobbs kettle, a Tesco toaster and an electric whisk. All made in China.

Well over half of Russia’s energy generation comes from coal and gas. It also exports coal, oil, LNG and gas to China, India and many EU countries, where Hungary, Slovakia, France, the Netherlands and Belgium are the top buyers.

There you have the top five users of coal. One other country, Indonesia, is the world’s largest coal exporter. A long time ago my geography teacher told me we had enough coal under our feet to give us cheap, constant and reliable electricity for 400 years.

I went shopping last December and bought a Hewlett Packard laptop, a set of electronic kitchen scales and an LED spotlight torch. All made in China.

The only remaining UK coal-fired power station was shut down in September 2024. In its place we have Drax, burning trees mainly from North America, producing four times more emissions than the coal plant, yet its output is categorised as ‘renewable’.

One of Labour’s biggest union backers, the GMB, has warned that their Net Zero policies are ‘the most destructive industrial calamity in our nation’s history’. The UK is to buy steel from China because ‘it comes from an electric arc furnace and so meets green aspirations. As I said above, more than half of China’s electricity comes from coal.

About one third of the gas for your central heating is provided by our North Sea oilfields. Another half arrives by pipeline from Norway’s North Sea operation, which is to ‘re-open dead oil and gas fields close to British waters’. We can use their North Sea gas but not ours because emission-free energy by 2030 means that no new licences for exploration in this area by the UK are being issued. Fracking could have provided us with around 20 per cent of our energy needs for 30 years but is banned.

Now for a report from a government advisory body existing happily in their own fantasy land. The UK Climate Change Committee’s June 2025 Progress Report’s first doubtful claim was that ‘a predominantly home-grown energy supply system . . . will reduce household bills.’ They cautiously didn’t say when.

Their second claim was true, but they obviously didn’t ask themselves why: ‘The UK,’ they wrote, ‘should . . . be proud of its place among a leading group of economies demonstrating consistent and sustained decarbonisation . . . greenhouse gas emissions have more than halved since 1990.’ Of course they have: they’ve all gone to China.

Last month, I went shopping and bought a loaf tin. Yes, that one in the photograph. Made in China. A simple loaf tin like those in the 19th century that we made in their tens of thousands and sold to the world for pennies. (Old pennies, of course. One of those used to buy you a stamp.)

I actually bought all those items. I have therefore helped the UK to bring down its emissions. If you want to join me then get spending but make sure nothing you buy is labelled ‘Made in Britain’.

An industrial scene featuring various consumer products arranged on boxes, with smoke emitting from factories in the background. The display includes shoes, clothing, lamps, electronic devices, and cans, all labeled with 'Imported Made in China.'

China ‘indoctrinating’ Mauritian officials before Chagos deal

The UK and Mauritius signed an agreement in May 2025 (following initial political agreement in October 2024) to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.
The agreement was designed to resolve a long-running sovereignty dispute dating back to the islands’ separation from Mauritius in the 1960s.
Thousands of Mauritian government and local officials have participated in China-sponsored “specialised courses” and training programs in recent years. These cover topics like capacity building, public sector management, AI integration, and other administrative skills- often funded by China.

Leaders shaking hands during a diplomatic meeting, with flags of various countries displayed in the background, alongside a map of Chagos.

The UK and Mauritius signed an agreement in May 2025 (following initial political agreement in October 2024) to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius.

The agreement was designed to resolve a long-running sovereignty dispute dating back to the islands’ separation from Mauritius in the 1960s.

Thousands of Mauritian government and local officials have participated in China-sponsored “specialised courses” and training programs in recent years. These cover topics like capacity building, public sector management, AI integration, and other administrative skills- often funded by China.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Aerial view of a coastal landscape featuring a mix of turquoise waters, small islands, and a distant airport runway surrounded by greenery and sandy shores.

Beijing-sponsored ‘training’ for government workers is a national security risk, say MPs

Thousands of Mauritian officials have been travelling to China for “specialised courses” before the planned handover of the Chagos Islands. The Telegraph has the story.

Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to cede sovereignty of the islands to Mauritius has been called a national security risk because of the nation’s close links to China.

Reports from the Mauritian government reveal the scale of its relationship with the communist superpower. More than 6,000 officials from the government and local authorities have been trained by the Chinese in everything from “capacity building” to integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into the public sector.

The figures include “many who travelled to China for specialised courses”. Hundreds more are to receive training from Beijing in the months ahead.

A satellite image of Diego Garcia island with labels indicating its name, alongside a group of officials standing together in front of a backdrop with Chinese and European flags and promotional graphics for a training program.

The Tories warned it was evidence officials in Mauritius had been “indoctrinated” by Beijing.

Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said the training posed a “real risk” to Britain’s national security.

She told The Telegraph: “Thousands of Mauritian officials are being trained and indoctrinated by China as they increase their influence and control over Mauritius.

“Despite the real risk this poses to our national security interests, our weak and feeble Prime Minister is continuing to promote Labour’s £35bn Chagos surrender.

“China will hold increasing influence and leverage over Mauritius, which will threaten our interests if Keir Starmer gives away the Chagos Islands, given the treaty will require the UK disclosing confidential information about operations on the Diego Garcia military base.

“Handing over control of the Chagos Islands to an ally of China is a huge strategic blunder and costly mistake.”

Under the terms of the deal, the UK would hand over the archipelago to Mauritius and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by the UK and the US.

There have been mounting fears about the implications for British and American security, with the White House concerned the plan could expose the US to spying by China.

In July 2025, Mauritius and China committed to “advance cooperation in capacity building, training programmes, and efforts to integrate artificial intelligence into the public service sector”.

Read the full story here.

Aerial view of a vibrant coastal landscape featuring a large flag with red, yellow, and green colors waving above a tropical island surrounded by turquoise waters and coral reefs.

Poor nations won’t follow Europe and the UN into energy suicide

Calling them wasteful and a threat to America’s sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, President Trump pulled the United States out of 66 international organizations – most importantly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundation for “climate crisis” treaties and policies.

Map of Europe with the phrase 'Green Colonialism' and yellow stars superimposed on a green background.

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

The United Nations building in New York City, showcasing its modern architecture and surrounded by flags representing different nations against a cloudy sky.

Calling them wasteful and a threat to America’s sovereignty, freedoms, and prosperity, President Trump pulled the United States out of 66 international organizations – most importantly the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the foundation for “climate crisis” treaties and policies.

He also withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement, vetoed U.S. attendance at the 2025 COP30 climate conference, and revoked multiple costly regulations based on “climate crisis” claims.

Dozens of banks have withdrawn from the Net Zero Banking Alliance. At this year’s World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, climate action, renewable energy, and sustainable development received little attention – by the wealthy political, corporate, and financial elites who populate the WEF.

(However, the WEF may simply be going into stealth mode, using its “financialization of nature” concept to “treat ecosystems as assets,” dollarize them – and set the stage for the “international community” or UN to replace local, state, and national decision-making on development.)

Bill Gates now says climate change is not a crisis, and the world must start focusing instead on improving lives, healthcare and living standards for the world’s poorest people, especially by ensuring they have plentiful, dependable, affordable energy – which only coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear can provide.

Running counter to these trends, Western Europe is still committing economic suicide – or more accurately, its elites are committing economic and real manslaughter against poor and working classes.

But meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia, and other recently impoverished and still developing countries are increasingly using fossil fuels to lift millions, even billions out of poverty, disease, and despair. African and other nations are eager to follow – and tell Western climate scolds to buzz off.

Winter Storm Fern caused dozens of deaths across the United States. Hundreds of thousands went hours or days without electricity, mostly due to ice breaking power lines amid days-long frigid temperatures.

But every year, in still-poor countries, nearly 750 million people still have no access to electricity – 600 million in Sub-Saharan Africa alone. Billions more have minimal, sporadic access. They subsist in permanent or rolling blackouts.

Not dozens, but millions of them die every year. From indoor air pollution from having to burn wood, charcoal, grass, and dung, because they don’t have natural gas, propane, or electricity for cooking and heating. From bacteria and parasites in their water and food, because they don’t have electricity, water treatment, or refrigeration. From malaria and other diseases, because their substandard clinics and hospitals lack electricity, clean water, sufficient vaccines, and antibiotics, even window screens.

In short, due to being deprived of energy, sound governance, vibrant economies, and jobs. And to global fixations on the “climate crisis” and “ridding the world of fossil fuels,” instead of meeting their needs.

It’s equally abominable that the legacy news media, academia, and “human rights stalwarts” largely those basic needs – while they incessantly bash the United States, Israel, and Western culture.

Global financial institutions are no better – including the World Bank and assorted Multilateral Development Banks, including the Asian Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and even the African Development Bank.

They remind me of Saint Augustine: let us embrace and promote development – but not yet, not too much, and not with fossil fuels. Indeed, most of them still refuse to finance little more than wind, solar, and other “renewable energy” projects. They impose Carbon Colonialism, poverty, disease, and death on poor families – with self-righteous morality and feigned concern about the human tolls.

In 2015, President Obama launched his Power Africa initiative, telling African audiences this was their opportunity to “leapfrog over dirty energy and immediately go to clean energy.”

For a short while, the African Development Bank (AfDB) seemingly broke from this crowd, voicing muted support for coal and gas power generation. “Africa must develop its energy sector with what it has,” AfDB President Akinwumi Adesina said in 2017 – renewable energy and the continent’s vast coal, oil, and gas resources, most of which remain untapped or get exported.

Ignoring fossil fuels is unsustainable, intolerable and immoral – as is the absurd reality that, excluding South Africa, per capita power consumption in Africa is around 660 kWh per annum, compared to an average 6,000 kWh in Europe and 12,500 kWh in the USA.

Thankfully, more African and other countries are freeing themselves from “progressive” Western shackles. However, since 2017, the AfDB has stopped funding new coal projects and restricted oil and gas drilling and production. Abundant, reliable, affordable baseload electricity for Africa seems to have again given way to climate politics, though the changing global tide initiated by President Trump may alter that yet again.

Meanwhile though, China, India and other countries now realize that coal and hydrocarbons are the sine qua non of prosperity, employment, health, and political and strategic power.

As energy and science researcher Vijay Jayaraj recently noted, 460 coal plants are under construction worldwide, another 500 have permits or soon will, and 260 more new coal-fired power plants could be announced soon. Oil and gas are also growing in importance as fuels and raw materials. Wind and solar are add-ons but can never replace coal, hydrocarbons, or nuclear power.

The vast majority of the coal plants are in China and India, with Indonesia and other nations also surging ahead – building reliable generation for affordable electricity, securing supply lines, and drilling and mining their way out of dependence on foreign supplies.

They’re also following the path that Europe, the United States, and other nations did to become developed and wealthy. Every investment in new power generates industries, jobs, tax revenues, and more money for future investments. Free enterprise financing, invention, inspiration, perspiration, and production – with essential, non-stifling government regulation – remain the fastest, surest way forward.

Simply put, the world doesn’t need some “miracle of prosperity.” It needs to eradicate the anti-miracle tragedy of continued poverty. There is simply no reason poverty should continue – or that prosperity should not be found everywhere.

Books, courses, and the internet enable every politician and citizen to learn what technologies are available, what they’ve accomplished, and how to achieve health and prosperity.

These resources also bear witness to the failures across Europe and other countries that have sent living standards back 50-100 years – and sentenced their citizens to energy deprivation, joblessness, and dying because they can no longer afford proper heating and air conditioning or even nutritious food – due to misplaced devotion to climate and renewable energy ideologies.

We might call this the Reverse-Midas Effect: everything climate alarmists touch turns to lead – which brings lead poisoning, developmental delays, learning and behavioral problems, memory dysfunction, even comas and death. In people and nations.

Governments and institutions must support basic human rights of access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy to support modern living standards. Not free; but access to that energy. The must stop financing the WEF, UN, World Bank, and other institutions that often despise America and support only such health and living standards as wind and solar power can provide.