Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Germany’s natural gas storage levels have indeed dropped significantly this winter, reaching around 28-29% as of early February 2026, according to the latest data from reliable sources like Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) via AGSI.
Germany’s natural gas storage levels have indeed dropped significantly this winter, reaching around 28-29% as of early February 2026, according to the latest data from reliable sources like Gas Infrastructure Europe (GIE) via AGSI.
As of February 6, 2026 (around 6 AM CET), Germany’s storage stands at 28.42% filled, with a working gas volume of approximately 71.38 TWh out of a technical capacity of about 251 TWh. This reflects a daily trend of -0.68%, with heavy withdrawals (around 2,097 GWh/d) far outpacing minor injections (77 GWh/d).
This is notably low compared to recent history: it was around 56% at a similar point a year ago, and it’s below the EU average of about 38% (with the EU total at roughly 433 TWh filled).
Earlier in the winter (late January/early February), levels hovered in the low-to-mid 30s before declining further due to sustained cold temperatures increasing demand.
This situation has drawn attention because it’s historically low for this time of year—some reports note it’s the lowest in early February on record—and storage depletion has been faster than expected amid an unusually cold spell.
The article from Blackout News, published on February 5, 2026, warns that the energy situation in Germany is becoming increasingly critical, with a significant rise in the risk of a gas shortage.
Gas storage running out. Symbol image generated by Grok AI
Politicians, media lying about “harsh winter” being the cause of the shortage… Reality: Mismanagement is to blame…Germany was never even prepared for a WARM winter!
By late January 2026, German gas storage levels had dropped to approximately 32.75%. As of today, February 6, 2026: the storage fill levels are at only 28.1%. And things risk getting much worse.
Neighboring countries are at their limits
In an article, Blackout News highlights several factors contributing to this precarious situation. Firstly. Germany’s most important supplier via pipeline, Norway, is reaching its technical limits and Germany cannot “simply order more” because the pipelines are already operating near maximum capacity.
Secondly, the Netherlands, often viewed as a backup source, currently has even lower storage levels than Germany. In a crisis, nations prioritize their own supply, making additional exports to Germany unlikely.
US LNG won’t make a dent
Germany cannot also rely on LNG supplies from USA as severe cold snaps increase global competition for LNG, making it either unavailable or prohibitively expensive on the world market.
The situation is dire, according to Blackout News: “With constant, typical winter consumption, the remaining gas reserves in a tense scenario will only last for a maximum of about six weeks.”
Solar and wind not coming through
Another problem are the periods of low wind and solar output (known as a Dunkelflaute), which act as a “multiplier” for the crisis. During these times, gas-fired power plants must run longer to compensate for the lack of renewable energy, further depleting reserves.
Myth: Cold, harsh winter Fact: Current winter significantly warmer
Politicians are blaming “the cold winter” for the woes. But the real reason is the country’s catastrophic energy supply mismanagement, especially the transition to green energies.
Based on recent meteorological data from the German Weather Service (DWD), the winter of 2025/26 (up to early February) has been significantly warmer than the 1961–1990 reference period, which the DWD likes to use when reporting its monthly climate reports.
The lawfare operation Good Law Project has demanded the UK broadcast regulator Ofcom stop the Murdoch-owned Talk station broadcasting “climate misinformation”. In campaign literature it claims that “toxic channel” Talk, “regularly spouts misinformation about the climate crisis”, using a headline claim that a guest recently said climate science “doesn’t add up to a row of beans”. Alas, this is wholly incorrect.
The lawfare operation Good Law Project has demanded the UK broadcast regulator Ofcom stop the Murdoch-owned Talk station broadcasting “climate misinformation”. In campaign literature it claims that “toxic channel” Talk, “regularly spouts misinformation about the climate crisis”, using a headline claim that a guest recently said climate science “doesn’t add up to a row of beans”. Alas, this is wholly incorrect. Your correspondent should know, I am supposed to have said it. What in fact I observed last November to presenter Ian Collins (here, at one hour 15 minutes) was that Net Zero promoters “were backing it up with science that doesn’t add up to a row of beans”.
As an independent journalist covering climate and Net Zero for a number of years, I would never dismiss the entirety of climate science in this childish way. A check via Grok confirms this statement. There is some good science around climate and there is a great deal of bad, at times fraudulent, work. Misrepresenting my words could be considered highly damaging, libellous even, although on this occasion I am inclined to discount malevolence in favour of incompetence. I could demand a correction, but on the other hand, who gives a toss.
The Good Law Project is an activist operation promoting what are described as progressive causes. It receives funding from individual donations, but also collects cash from foundations such as Joseph Rowntree, the hard-Left money tree. Also listed as a donor is Dale Vince, owner of the state-subsidy dependent Ecotricity. This latest attack on science and political free speech also involves an outfit called Stop Funding Heat (SFH). This is a small band of activists that recently persuaded Damian Carrington of the Guardian to take up its cause. He quoted campaigners who claimed Ofcom was allowing GB News and others to “flout” accuracy rules and broadcast “climate change denial”. Just two broadcast media in the UK offer any critical perspective on climate change. The rest hide behind the preposterous notion that the science is ‘settled’ and use this convenient bias to promote the Net Zero fantasy.
In a letter dated January 26th on behalf of SFH to Ofcom, the Good Law Project says its client has submitted 71 complaints since April 2024 about “climate misinformation and bias broadcasting” by GB News and Talk. Except for two still under review, all are noted to have been dismissed. It further states that information from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Guardian reveals 1,221 complaints about the alleged misinformation were submitted to Ofcom over the last five years. Each of these complaints was rejected.
Five specific Talk broadcasts are singled out for attack. Many of the comments complained about are simply political opinions protected, one might still hope, under freedom of expression laws. For instance, on November 27th last year, presenter Mark Dolan said that “if we didn’t have this insane, self-destructive, zealous approach to Net Zero, the crazy, unsustainable target – then many of those tax rises, if not all of them yesterday would simply not have been necessary”. Here we have robust commentary on a Labour Government driving the country’s finances off a cliff – last time anyone looked, it was allowed. On the same broadcast, Daily Sceptic contributor Ben Pile commented that electric vehicles were” an attempt to make people obedient, not an attempt to offer a climate solution”. Those who know Ben are aware that he is perfectly capable of making an intellectual argument that forcing people to buy EVs is making them obey a political command.
In addition to the “row of beans” quote, I was also accused of stating that people had been “crying wolf” about climate change. Forty years of constant climate scares that never occur is the unanswerable proof that backs up this claim. I am also said to have “misrepresented facts” and cited false claims. Needless to say, I am obliged for the lecture on misrepresentation from this particular source.
The political writer Brendan O’Neill offered the opinion that Labour’s energy policies were “suicidal”, “driven by pseudoscience in many cases” and “a kind of cultish behaviour”. For Exhibit A in consideration of unfalsifiable pseudoscience, we need look no further than the media and lawfare friendly field of weather attribution. Author Rupert Darwall referred to claims of climate breakdown and said it was “absolutely outrageous that they are scaring children about something that is not going to happen”. Exhibit B might be the numerous reports of children and young adults needing therapy for so-called climate anxiety.
Green activists and lawfare merchants are encouraged to tittle tattle to Ofcom because the state regulator still holds that the scientific principles behind what it falsely claims is a ‘theory’ of anthropogenic global warming are broadly settled. The legal case is advanced that alternative explanations and opinions must be inaccurate and are therefore in breach of Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code. But as Eric Worrall recently pointed out, the problem with enforced agreement on the facts is that in science, “there is no such thing as a fact which cannot be challenged”. Perhaps these wise words could influence any ‘sod off’ reply that Ofcom makes to the complaining letter.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor. Follow him on X.
“air temperatures in the [Arctic or globally] are now at their warmest in the past 6,800–7,800 y, and that the recent rate of temperature change is unprecedented over the entire Holocene.” (Lecavalier et al., 2017)
“air temperatures in the [Arctic or globally] are now at their warmest in the past 6,800–7,800 y, and that the recent rate of temperature change is unprecedented over the entire Holocene.” (Lecavalier et al., 2017)
While it is remotely possible that current Arctic or global average temperature is higher than any seen in the past 6,800 years, it is very unlikely and can’t be demonstrated with data we have today. It is almost certainly true that the rate of change in global or Arctic temperature observed recently is not unprecedented in the Holocene Epoch. This modern myth has been thoroughly debunked in the literature and seeing it pop up in PNAS and elsewhere is disconcerting. I thought peer-review was supposed to catch such errors.
Warmest in the past 6,800-7,800 years
The first assertion in Lecavalier et al.’s paper is that the Arctic is now warmer than at any time in the past 6,800-7,800 years. The warmest time in the Holocene (12,000 years ago to the present) is generally accepted to be the Holocene Climatic Optimum or the Holocene Thermal Maximum, both names are used. Two of my favorite Northern Hemisphere Holocene temperature proxies suggest that today is only warmer than the past 1,000-2,000 years as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1. The Vinther Greenland ice core (orange) and the Rosenthal Makassar Strait (black) temperature proxies. Sources: (Vinther et al., 2009) & (Rosenthal et al., 2013).
In figure 1 the Rosenthal Makassar Strait proxy represents sea surface temperature (SST) in the Northern Pacific and the Vinther Greenland proxy is an air temperature proxy in northern Greenland (more details on Vinther and Rosenthal can be seen here). Kaufman et al. (2009) show us a set of Arctic proxies and show them combined in figure 2, which is from the corrected version of the Kaufman, 2009 supplementary materials.
Figure 2. Kaufman’s combined proxies (top), ice core proxies (second from top), sediment proxies (third), and tree ring proxies (bottom). Source: (Kaufman et al., 2009) supplementary materials, corrected (see here).
The same modern discrepancy between the tree rings and the other proxies can be seen in Kaufman et al.’s figure 3A, reproduced as our figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Kaufman et al. figure 3A. Arctic proxy overlay in standardized units. Source: (Kaufman et al., 2009). The tree ring proxies are shown in green and they diverge from the others. There is general agreement that summer Arctic warming is driven by Earth’s orbital cycles, especially precession and obliquity (see figure 4). This post was inspired by a discussion on a previous post, the critical comment is here.
There is general agreement that summer Arctic warming is driven by Earth’s orbital cycles, especially precession and obliquity (see figure 4). This post was inspired by a discussion on a previous post, the critical comment is here.
Figures 2 & 3 show that both recent Greenland area sediment and ice core proxies decline after ~1940, but the tree ring proxies mostly stay high. We will remember that the late Keith Briffa (Briffa et al., 1998b) warned us that tree ring proxies diverged from other proxies in 1998, he speculated that increasing CO2 probably had a lot do with this divergence. The divergence and Michael Mann’s attempt to hide the problem led to the now famous “hide the decline” (McIntyre, 2014) & (McIntyre, 2011) scandal after the 2009 CRU email dump. I have no answer for the divergence or the apparent time shifts between proxies in figures 2 & 3 but warn the reader that proxy temperatures are not temperatures that are comparable to thermometer readings we make today, they are just proxies and dates for the proxy readings are uncertain.
Figure 4. The top illustration, from (Haigh, 2011), shows the elements of the Milankovich orbital cycles, eccentricity, precession, and obliquity (or axial tilt). The bottom illustration from (Vinós, 2017) shows the climatic impact since 40,000 years BP.
The top illustration in figure 4 shows the elements of the Milankovitch cycles (Haigh, 2011). The seasonal curves in the bottom illustration (Vinós, 2017) show the impact of precession. The seasonal curves are labeled with the hemisphere (N or S) and the first letters of the months. The heavy curves are the summer months of the Northern Hemisphere (red) and the Southern Hemisphere (blue). The changes in insolation are represented by the background color (scale to the right in W/m2). The black curve shows the δ18O isotope changes from the NGRIP Greenland ice core analysis, a temperature proxy (Alley, 2000). The δ18O temperature proxy has no scale, but higher temperatures are up and lower temperatures down. The vertical scale is latitude, and the horizontal scale is time from 40,000 years ago to the present and zero on the background color scale is the insolation by latitude today.
The changes in the background color (insolation) in the bottom illustration in figure 4 are mostly due to changes in Earth’s orbital obliquity and are approximately symmetrical with regard to the hemispheres. The changes due to obliquity determine how much insolation reaches the poles versus the tropics. Precession on the other hand affects the seasonal distribution of solar energy, so as you can see, the end of the last glacial period at the beginning of the Holocene 11,700 years ago was when obliquity and precession were maximal in the Northern Hemisphere. Maximal precession means the difference in the Northern Hemisphere summer and winter was maximal, the total insolation by latitude remains about the same. Maximal obliquity means both poles receive the maximum insolation they will get, at the expense of the tropics.
Other interesting things to note in the lower part of figure 4 are that insolation barely changes throughout the Holocene in the tropics but changes a lot at the poles. The N-JJA (precession) curve looks a lot like the Makassar Strait and Greenland proxies in figure 1, notice the Holocene Climatic Optimum and Neoglacial labels in both figures 4 and 1.
Figure 5 shows the full Vinther and Rosenthal curves and relates them to historical events. Click on the figure or here to see at full resolution.
Figure 5. Vinther Greenland reconstruction (middle) and Rosenthal Makassar Strait reconstruction (top) compared to historical events. Click on the figure to see at full resolution. Source: Figure 3 here.
There are a large number of historical references in the timeline shown in Figure 5 and we will not explain all of them here, they are well documented in earlier posts here and here. We will just make the point that significant local climate changes are historical events that are often described in detail by the historians of the time and dated precisely. These historical descriptions can be more valuable than biological or ice core proxies.
As figure 4 shows, the Arctic received the maximum insolation at the beginning of the Holocene 9,700BC (Walker et al., 2009). This was also the time of the fastest change in Arctic temperature during the Holocene. Around 9,700BC Severinghaus et al. documented a 5-10°C warming event that took only a few decades, dwarfing the warming rate we observe today. The warming event is identified in the middle plot in figure 5. This warming event is so significant it is part of the official geological basis for the beginning of the Holocene Epoch (Walker et al., 2009).
The top plot in figure 5 shows the temperature of the 500-meter water in the Makassar Strait, which is representative of the North Pacific SST (Rosenthal et al., 2013). The present-day temperature in the Makassar Strait from the University of Hamburg (Gouretski, 2019) ocean temperature database is shown on this plot as a red box, it is well below the temperatures seen in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Roman Warm Period (RWP). In the middle plot of figure 5, the Vinther reconstruction (Vinther et al., 2009) is the orange line. The earlier blue line is the Alley reconstruction (Alley, 2000) spliced to it. The HadCRUT5 Greenland temperature average from 2000-2020 is plotted as a red box for comparison to the proxy temperature. The modern temperature in Greenland is roughly the same as the MWP temperature.
Discussion
There is considerable evidence that modern Arctic and Northern Hemisphere temperatures are well below the temperatures of 6,800-7,800 years ago. There is also a lot of evidence that the rate of temperature increase in 9,700BC was much faster than the increase we observe today. Comparing the rate of warming today when we have daily temperatures from all over the world to pre-industrial proxies is problematic. The high-quality Rosenthal and Vinther proxies have a resolution of about 20-years over the past 2000 years, so the modern averages that we compare them to in figure 5 cover 11 years (U of Hamburg) and 21 years (Greenland). It is much easier to reduce modern resolution for comparisons to the past than to try and increase proxy resolution. It is foolish to try and reconstruct global or hemispheric temperature records with proxies; they are very coarse and the averaging process used to make the reconstructions destroys the critical detail needed to determine a rate of warming.
Besides the rapid warming seen in these proxies around 9,700BC, there was also rapid warming around 6200BC, 40BC, and 800AD. Any of these periods could have warmed faster than today if they could be compared with the same coverage and accuracy.
Briffa, K., Schweingruber, F., Jones, P., Osborn, T., & Vaganov, E. (1998b). Reduced Sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high latitudes. Nature, 678-682. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/35596
Kaufman, D. S., Schneider, D. P., McKay, N. P., Ammann, C. M., Bradley, R. S., Briffa, K. R., . . . Vinther, B. M. (2009). Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling. Science, 325(5945). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1173983
Lecavalier, B., Fisher, D., G.A. Milne, B., Vinther, L., Tarasov, P., Huybrechts, D., . . . Dyke, A. (2017). High Arctic Holocene temperature record from the Agassiz ice cap and Greenland ice sheet evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 114(23), 5952-5957. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
Vinther, B., Buchardt, S., Clausen, H., Dahl-Jensen, Johnsen, Fisher, . . . Svensson. (2009, September). Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature, 461. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355
Walker, M., Johnsen, S., Rasmussen, U. O., Popp, T., Steffensen, J.-P., Gibbard, P., . . . Newnham, R. (2009). Formal definition and dating of the GSSP (Global Stratotype Section and Point) for the base of the Holocene using the Greenland NGRIP ice core,and selected auxiliary records. Journal Of Quaternary Science, 24, 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/jqs.1227
In early February 2026 (and late January), Finland experienced an extended cold spell with temperatures dropping to -20°C or lower in key wind- heavy regions like western Ostrobothnia, combined with low-lying fog and calm winds.
Icing is a recurring issue for wind in Nordic countries (though many modern turbines have de-icing tech like blade heaters or coatings, not all deployments do, and extreme fog exacerbates it). Low wind (Dunkelflaute-like conditions) compounds the problem.
In early February 2026 (and late January), Finland experienced an extended cold spell with temperatures dropping to -20°C or lower in key wind- heavy regions like western Ostrobothnia, combined with low-lying fog and calm winds.
Icing is a recurring issue for wind in Nordic countries (though many modern turbines have de-icing tech like blade heaters or coatings, not all deployments do, and extreme fog exacerbates it). Low wind (Dunkelflaute-like conditions) compounds the problem.
Renewables make grids “fragile” or “Fubar”. The phrase “Fubar” is a military slang for “Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition”.
But mainstream sources (Bloomberg, Helsinki Times, Fingrid data) frame it as a manageable winter hiccup, not a collapse.
Science Matters tells the whole story about Finland’s renewable- heavy energy systems.
“Imagine an argument so airtight about science so settled over technology so reliable that you have to use censorship to make sure nobody gives a dissenting opinion.” @ProctorZ
Finland has prided itself as a global leader in decarbonization, boasting the second-highest share of renewables in final energy consumption across the EU.
But the green utopia narrative has cracked under the strain of a brutal winter, as cold weather has brought wind power generation to a near standstill.
Most of the country’s wind capacity is concentrated in western Finland, where temperatures are well below freezing, and these adverse weather conditions have led to dangerous ice buildup on turbine blades. According to Bloomberg, this forced the grid operator Fingrid Oyj to curtail wind power output.
Primary energy sources in Finland 2017. All fossil fuels should be replaced by clean energy sources.
“There are low fog clouds in Finland’s main wind power production area, roughly at the height of turbine blades, which are causing new ice to form,” Pia Isolähteenmäki, an adviser at industry consultant Kjeller Vindteknikk Oy, told the outlet.
Much of Finland’s wind fleet lacks blade-heating systems for extreme cold weather. How is that even possible, considering it’s a Nordic country? Even the thinnest ice buildup risks equipment damage and has led to shutdowns this week.
Bloomberg data show that Finnish wind output is expected to remain very low for the next two weeks. Meteorologists at MetDesk forecast that Nordic wind generation will remain as much as 20% below normal through at least the midpoint of the month.
The result of the green utopia pushed by Europe’s climate alarmists, not based in reality whatsoever, is soaring power prices that are crushing working poor households.
Wind tubine defrosting in Sweden
Helsinki Times wrote on Sunday:
“Electricity prices in Finland rise to the highest level of the winter on Monday, driven by severe cold, weak wind conditions and rising weekday demand,”
Finnish folks on X are questioning the government’s questionable decarbonization push:
Dana X post:
News from the “green garden”. In Finland, the blades of wind turbines froze. The electricity production of wind power stations in Finland fell from 9433 MW to about 430 MW. Thus, they produced no less than 5% of the nominal power. The culprit turned out to be Russian frosts, the possibility of which European energy companies did not take into account when implementing the “green” transition.
Zeaqi X post:
Finland literally has to use nuclear power to MELT frozen wind turbines, and we live in darkness most of the year. How about focusing on reliable power like nuclear instead?
Mari Luukkainen X post:
Our electricity bill was 45 EUR yesterday alone. Finland: nuclear power, hydroelectric, wind farms, one of the most technically advanced countries in the world. Also, Finland: people burning firewood because the electricity market is fucked. I am sitting next to the fireplace shitposting on LinkedIn (that’s why shitposting is very intense today). This is my energy strategy.
In the US, a historic cold snap in the eastern half of the country led to increased fossil-fuel power generation to prevent power grid collapse.
Across the West, years of grid mismanagement by climate alarmist policymakers have transformed what were once reliable grids into fragile messes where working poor households bear the brunt of some of the highest electricity costs in the world.
It is time to get back to basics and expand natural gas generators and nuclear power, the only proven large-scale source of clean and reliable electricity. And it is also time to hold accountable the climate alarmists whose policy decisions pushed power grids toward the edge of collapse while promising a green utopia that was never going to arrive. And one can only wonder whether the move to push power grids to the brink of collapse was intentional.
Wrong, Roger. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)?
“Wrong, Roger Hallam. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and, yes, of warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)?”
The Climate Industrial Complex, the companies and their nonprofit allies, are flexing toward the middle. It is all about money and power, less about real human welfare re “saving the planet.’
This inconvenient truth has the true believers upset. Consider the latest from Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, where he works full-time:
Another disastrously pathetic response from “environmental campaigners” – who cares about the bloody “green new deal”. What needs to be communicated is that unless there is a drastic reduction in emissions – and that means including zero car emissions by 2030 – Europeans are going to starve to death. Literally, they are going to be dead.
He continues:
Relaxing the regulation on car emissions makes as much “common sense” as organising the suicide of western civilisation. It is fucking mad.
What a nut! And a stain on Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil that employ him. The poor man’s Al Gore is the story of a dirt farmer gone mad. “As an organic farmer for over 20 years,” Hallam explains, “I could no longer sustain my vegetable growing.” It wasn’t his fault.
The impacts of climate change were decimating the livelihoods of farmers such as myself. Something was very wrong with the world; I could feel it, I could see it and I knew that something had to be done about it as our entire food production system was at stake.
I studied the science and realized beyond unequivocal doubt that the extinction crisis was upon us and that our impending annihilation was being perpetuated by psychopathological criminals who have no interest in the wellbeing of the average human being or the natural world.
The know-it-all versus the world continues his self-described journey:
Something needed to be done; I gave up everything I had and left for Kings College where I spent the next 4 years sleeping in my car in order to complete my studies in the science of mass mobilization in the tradition of Martin Luther King and Gandhi. I found the answers to the questions I had been seeking. I discovered the actions that we need to take in order to buy ourselves as much time as possible and mitigate indescribable suffering that awaits us as most of the planet becomes uninhabitable and we risk unspeakable horrors such as mass slaughter, starvation and rape, and the rise of fascistic regimes as the scramble for water and land takes off.
Roger knows what everyone else doesn’t:
But of course, the NGOs are not going to say this and so they are massively complicit in the appalling denial that covers up the death wish of the elites.
Wrong, Roger. Weather is not climate change. Your professors at Kings College–did any question climate models and explain the benefits of CO2 enrichment and warmer temperatures (think winters and nights)? What about energy price inflation for the masses, including yourself, from dilute, intermittent wind and solar? Or do we (you first!) have to go without?
Why are industrial wind, solar, and batteries environmental? Those “green” companies–are they led by crony capitalists living off of the rest of us?
Roger Hallam, the global rethink of global climate change gets to you, too. Consider all the downsides of anti-CO2 and report back–with detail.
Trump 2 has represented a new era of energy consumerism against the termite aspirations of the Progressive Left. A recent compilation by the Institute for Energy Research lists 263 executive actions in this regard.
“We are deeply concerned about the implications of this directive [for DOE to quantify the CO2-intensity of domestic versus foreign goods]. While framed as a study, the structure and scope closely mirror the foundational work required to implement a U.S. carbon tax. Given your well-known opposition to carbon taxes and related schemes, we wanted to ensure you were fully aware of this provision and its potential trajectory.” (AEA Coalition Letter, below)
Trump 2 has represented a new era of energy consumerism against the termite aspirations of the Progressive Left. A recent compilation by the Institute for Energy Research lists 263 executive actions in this regard.
But the CO2 tax crowd lurks and can occasionally sneak one through. This occurred recently with a backdoor inclusion of an opening gambit toward an U.S.-side international tariff based on carbon dioxide (CO2) intensity, the work of Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and others.
The wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing is framed as a fairness issue, “highlight[ing] America’s carbon advantage and push back against discriminatory foreign tariffs on American products.”
They do it; we should too?
Nope!
Legislative instruction to study the issue is step one of getting CO2 tariffs (‘border adjustments”), which is step one of getting a domestic CO2 tax.
Just Say No; there is no need to follow the UK/EU’s climate/energy policies in the US; just the opposite.
A coalition letter headlined by the American Energy Alliance sent to DOE Secretary Chris Wright follows:
We are writing to alert you to language quietly included in a report that was attached to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. Page 112 of the report directs the Department of Energy to undertake a study that would facilitate the development of a carbon border adjustment mechanism (in other words, an energy tax) in the United States.
This report accompanying the energy spending bill was passed as part of the three-bill “minibus” appropriations package for fiscal year 2026, which combined the Energy and Water Development, Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, and Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies bills. President Donald Trump signed the minibus into law on January 23.
Specifically, the report adopted by Congress states:
“The Committee directs NETL to consult with relevant agencies, institutions, academia, and think tank partners and to provide not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act a study to determine the average emissions intensity of certain goods produced in the United States compared to those from other countries.
“Certain goods shall include all items implicated by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. The report shall include a detailed and transparent description of the methodology used to determine the average product emissions intensity of a product, a record of all sources of data used, and a list of covered products, including their associated heading or subheading of the U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule.”
We are deeply concerned about the implications of this directive. While framed as a study, the structure and scope closely mirror the foundational work required to implement a U.S. carbon tax. Given your well-known opposition to carbon taxes and related schemes, we wanted to ensure you were fully aware of this provision and its potential trajectory.
While this language appears only in a report, rather than statutory text that was passed, it is troublesome, nonetheless. A new energy tax is the last thing Americans need, yet proponents of punitive carbon taxes seem to want to lay the groundwork for a U.S. border carbon tax while shielding themselves from actually voting on such a measure. Perhaps they know that energy taxes are widely unpopular with their constituents. To that point, you have consistently emphasized that carbon taxes, whether explicit or repackaged as “border adjustments,” function as taxes on production and consumption, raising costs for American manufacturers, distorting energy markets, and undermining domestic energy security.
The Trump administration has been a strong and consistent voice against punitive energy taxes here in the U.S. and abroad. Last year, you joined Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy to successfully stop a United Nations-imposed carbon tax on maritime shipping. In that statement, you wrote:
“Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization… The Trump Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. We will fight hard to protect the American people and their economic interests. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice that we will look for their support against this action and not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens should this endeavor fail.”
This effort by some in Congress is a similar example of taking bad policy emanating from Europe–in this case, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism–and imposing it on American citizens. Therefore, the approach the administration took to address the maritime carbon tax should be adopted here, and DOE’s priority should be to prevent European policies from dictating the terms on which Americans engage in trade.
Thank you again for your leadership in pushing back against carbon taxes, particularly those originating in Europe, and for standing firm on behalf of American households, energy producers, and manufacturers.
Please do not hesitate to let us know if we can be helpful as you navigate this issue.
Signed:
Tom Pyle: President, American Energy Alliance Brent Gardner: Chief Government Affairs Officer, Americans for Prosperity Phil Kerpen: President, American Commitment Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Director, Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, The Heritage Foundation Ryan Ellis: President, Center for a Free Economy Tom Harris: Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition Alex Stevens: Manager of Policy and Communications, Institute for Energy Research Brandon Arnold: Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union Benjamin Zycher: Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (for identification purposes only) Grover Norquist: President, Americans for Tax Reform Daren Bakst: Director of the Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute Jenny Beth Martin: Honorary Chairman, Tea Party Patriots Action Daniel C. Turner: Founder & Executive Director, Power the Future Jerry R. Simmons: President and CEO, Domestic Energy Producers Alliance Amy Oliver Cooke: President, Always on Energy Research Daniel J. Mitchell: President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity David Williams: President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance Kristen Walker: Senior Policy Analyst and Manager for Energy, American Consumer Institute James Taylor: President, The Heartland Institute Seton Motley: President, Less Government Gabriella Hoffman: Director, Center for Energy and Conservation, Independent Women Craig Rucker: President, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Kristen A. Ullman: President, Eagle Forum E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.: President, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation Cameron Sholty: Director of Government Relations, Heartland Impact Hon. Jason Isaac: Founder and CEO, American Energy Institute Myron Ebell: Chairman-elect, American Lands Council Craig Richardson: President, E&E Legal Paul Gessing: President, Rio Grande Foundation John Hinderaker: President, Center of the American Experiment George Landrith: President, Frontiers of Freedom Jeffrey Mazzella: President, Center for Individual Freedom Matthew Kandrach: President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy Margaret Byfield: Executive Director, American Stewards of Liberty John Droz, Jr.: Founder, Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions Daniel Erspamer: President & CEO, Pelican Institute for Public Policy Frank Lasee: President, Truth in Energy and Climate
Critics, including a coalition led by the American Energy Alliance view this as a “slippery slope”:
The EU’s CBAM is already in effect (full implementation phases ongoing), taxing imports based on embedded emissions to prevent “carbon leakage.”
U.S. proposals like the Foreign Pollution Fee Act aim for similar import fees (sometimes without domestic equivalents), potentially boosting U.S. manufacturing but with mixed global emissions impacts.
Under the current administration, there’s strong resistance to anything resembling carbon taxes or global climate mandates, though bipartisan interest in emissions data persists for trade leverage.
Left: President Trump Signing Executive Orders. Right: Bjorn Lomborg, founder of the Copenhagen Consensus Center
Apparently, the IPCC is the main bulwark *against* climate alarmism?
How Trump can buy some global climate sanity for less than $2 million
The IPCC’s rigor keeps a lid on alarmism. The U.S. is needed to make sure that doesn’t change.
February 4, 2026, at 6:15 a.m. ESTYesterday at 6:15 a.m. EST
By Bjorn Lomborg
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”
The Trump administration’s effort to audit international commitments through the lens of fiscal discipline and national interest is forcing a reckoning for global institutions. While some of these bodies may struggle to justify their continued funding under rigorous scrutiny, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deserves a reconsideration.
Here is the inherent dilemma: The IPCC has long been the world’s most effective bulwark against climate alarmism. By rigorously summarizing the underlying science — which remains largely unalarming — it has restrained extreme narratives and forced policy debates back to evidence. …
The United States faces a choice at this pivotal moment. Withdrawing completely, as the Trump administration has said it will do, means surrendering influence over the IPCC’s direction — ceding control to alarmists, adversaries and less rigorous voices. The result will be more politicized exaggeration, more scare stories and more global alarmism.
Staying in the IPCC could also avoid an even worse barrage of scare stories. For example, IPCC reports have long shown little support for the recurrent claims about surging hurricanes, floods, droughts and wildfires. Yet the selection of authors for the next major report — due in 2029 — tilts toward “extreme event attribution” advocacy, which yields not scientific insight, but narratives better suited for media impact and litigation against fossil fuel companies. One of the new lead authors has pushed her own politics by linking climate change to issues like inequality, colonialism and racism.
Bjorn Lomborg founded the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He mostly takes the position of agreeing with IPCC science but arguing against the economic fundamentals of proposals for radical climate action.
Bjorn Lomborg might experience some professional discomfort if the IPCC becomes more radical, his narrative has long resided in the gap between the more restrained segments of IPCC product and the unhinged alarmism which activists want the public to hear. If as Bjorn argues, the source of that restraint is US funding and influence, US withdrawal will cause that gap Bjorn operates in to close pretty quickly.
The problem with Lomborg’s suggestion for preventing increasing radicalisation of the IPCC is, once the money is paid, the leverage is gone.
Unless the USA was to micromanage every cent, pay in small instalments, dictating the outcomes it wants to see in reports, it would never achieve the kind of influence required to divert activist lunatics from inserting their own garbage conclusions. They would take the money, smile, then do what they wanted to do anyway.
After all, what would the USA do when IPCC activist scientists laughed in the face of their US sponsors? Threaten to withhold funding next time? Sanction individual activist scientists? There are plenty of other activist scientists who would happily take the place of any sanctioned activists.
In addition, any attempt to micromanage the IPCC process the way I just described would rightly be seen as pay to play – demanding predetermined outcomes in return for money. There are already enough accusations of political interference with the existing IPCC process, including complaints about content oversight boards which include political appointees.
But a wholly irrational IPCC full of naked political activism would destroy its own credibility so rapidly, in a short time nobody would care what they had to say. A bit like how trust in the WHO crashed after how badly they bungled the Covid outbreak.
In my opinion President Trump is better off doing what he is currently doing – laying the foundations of a new institutions with leadership committed to evidence-based science. US institutions which can argue toe to toe against the activism and empty irrationality of broken international bodies.
Trying to rescue failed international institutions from their folly is just throwing good money after bad.
The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere refers to the average duration a CO2 molecule remains in the atmosphere before being removed through natural processes like absorption by oceans, plants, or soils. This is distinct from the adjustment time (also called perturbation lifetime or e-folding time), which measures how long it takes for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to return to equilibrium after a perturbation, such as added emissions.
The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere refers to the average duration a CO2 molecule remains in the atmosphere before being removed through natural processes like absorption by oceans, plants, or soils.
This is distinct from the adjustment time (also called perturbation lifetime or e-folding time), which measures how long it takes for the atmospheric CO2 concentration to return to equilibrium after a perturbation, such as added emissions.
The carbon cycle describes how carbon moves between reservoirs: atmosphere, oceans, land biosphere, soils, and fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for decades advocated net-zero governmental policies to reduce anthropogenic CO2 (aCO2) emissions.
This advocacy is rooted in the non-physical assumption that aCO2 molecules are special, as they remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.
In reality, a new study references the Equivalence Principle in emphasizing nature’s sinks indiscriminately and equivalently absorb both aCO2 and natural CO2 in about 4 years (Müller, 2025). There is no physical reality for IPCC claims of “specialized” absorption time for a CO2 vs. natural CO2 molecules.
The IPCC assumes exactly 50% of aCO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for decades to millennia. It is consequently assumed net-zero policies that propose to halve aCO2 emission will lead to the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Because “anthropogenic CO2 has the same [4-year] residence time of natural CO2,” this assumption is physically invalid.
Net-zero policies will literally have no detectable effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In sum, “the IPCC’s assumptions and fundamentals are wrong.”
With the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars less than four years away now, there remains one seemingly insurmountable obstacle: nobody wants to buy electric cars.
With the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars less than four years away now, there remains one seemingly insurmountable obstacle: nobody wants to buy electric cars.
Last year, sales of EVs achieved a market share of just 23.43%. Newly released figures for last month show this fell to 20.6%. The Government has set a target this year of 33%, rising to 66% in 2029.
Once petrol and diesel cars (known as ICE vehicles, short for Internal Combustion Engine) are banned in 2030, zero emission cars must make up at least 80% of the market, with the rest filled with hybrids. However, the latter will also be gradually phased out by 2035. Zero emission essentially means battery-electric, although hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles would also qualify.
To enforce the switch to EVs, the government introduced the ZEV (Zero Emission Vehicle) mandate. Motor manufacturers who fail to hit their ZEV target for the year must either buy credits from manufacturers who have exceeded targets or pay a fine of £15,000 for every car below target.
There are certain allowances available, but these are not significant. The only other option open to manufacturers who fall short is to carry forward their deficit, in the hope they are in surplus in a year or two time. Understandably, this has been likened to taking out a payday loan!
The first year of the ZEV mandate was 2024, when the target was 22%. Actual EV sales that year only reached 19.6%, leaving an effective shortfall of 47,000 cars. At £15,000 a time, that means a fine of around £700 million. The Department for Transport will publish its full analysis next month, which will list surpluses and shortfalls by manufacturer and the actions they have taken to comply, e.g. pay a fine, buy allowances or carry forward.
Last year, EV sales increased to a share of 23.9%, but this was still well below the target of 28%. Motor manufacturers it seems are building up massive deficits in EV sales, which sooner or later will have to be paid for.
Worse still, most EV sales go to fleet and business sectors, driven by generous tax breaks. It is estimated that only about 10% of private buyers go for electric.
The reasons are well known. EVs cost much more to buy, and most models don’t have the range that drivers need. On top of that, buyers face massive losses when trading them in because second- hand prices are so low.
But there is one other factor which is often overlooked.
It is reckoned that four in 10 households don’t have off-street parking, so cannot easily charge at home. Using a public charger means that running costs would typically be triple those of a petrol- car when fuel duties are excluded. That is, I should point out, if you can actually find one on the way home from work that is not already in use.
Local councils such as my own have already made it clear that trailing cables across the pavement is not permitted and that enforcement action will be taken. Where then will EV drivers be able to charge their cars?
There are plenty of fine words from central and local government about installing more public chargers. But the simple reality is that there will never be enough – local councils don’t have the money, and it is not their job anyway to waste taxpayer money in this way.
Cardiff City Council are a case in point. It is estimated that there are about 200,000 cars in Cardiff, about half of which don’t have access to off street parking. The City Council has just announced plans to install 80 new EV charging stations, plugged into lampposts outside residents’ homes.
The plan won’t make the slightest difference when there are 100,000 cars which all need charging. But it will create real difficulties for the poor beggars who happen to live next to one and will have to find somewhere else to park. The thought of all the other motorists on the street competing to get to that lamppost first every night and the aggro which will undoubtedly follow is frightening.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the objective of successive governments and council planners all along has been to force us out of our cars and onto public transport.
You must be logged in to post a comment.