Claim: AI and Air Conditioning are Threatening Renewable Energy Dominance

“… Achieving a genuine and sustained global-scale energy transition … requires greater emphasis on reducing energy demand …”

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

“… Achieving a genuine and sustained global-scale energy transition … requires greater emphasis on reducing energy demand …”

Broadcast: News items

Energy-hungry AI and air conditioning risk wiping out climate gains made by renewables

By: Vicky Welstead
Last updated: Friday, 13 February 2026

The rapid expansion of renewable energy is being used to meet rising electricity demands rather than displacing fossil fuels, according to new research by the University of Sussex.  

Energy-hungry artificial intelligence data centres and greater use of air conditioning in a fast-heating world are among several factors threatening to undermine the climate gains made by renewables, according to the paper published in Nature Reviews Clean Technology.

Researchers from Sussex and Vienna’s Central European University found record growth in solar power in the first three quarters of 2025. For the first time this rise in clean electricity outpaced global growth in electricity demand, yet the researchers warn this fragile balance is now starting to tip back the other way.  

Since the 2015 Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global temperature rises, global wind and solar power generation has grown rapidly, yet emissions from the power sector have continued to rise as electricity demand has grown even faster. Analysis of global energy demand in 2025 found artificial-intelligence data centres are a major driver, alongside increased use of air conditioning as people struggle to cope with hotter temperatures.

Electrification of transport and consumer trends such as bigger cars were also highlighted as culprits. The report found these pressures are eroding efficiency gains made by individual countries. Projections to 2030 warn that increases in electricity use could consume most new renewable supply unless proactive measures are taken to limit demand.

“Renewables are scaling at record speed, but demand growth from data centres, cooling and transport is running just as fast,” said Professor Felix Creutzig, Bennett Institute Chair at the University of Sussex. “We need policies that curb unnecessary energy use and shape demand so that clean electricity can have the intended effect of cutting emissions from fossil fuels.”

The report cites evidence from the European Union and major cities showing that demand reduction isn’t necessarily a matter of human hardship, and can coincide with economic growth and wellbeing for citizens through efficiency measures and urban planning that reduces dependence on cars. The authors conclude that aligning renewables with demand-side strategies is now central to meaningful decarbonisation.

The University of Sussex’s Bennett Institute for Innovation and Policy is hosting its annual Research Symposium on 19 February. Under the theme Zero Hour for Energy Policy: Researching the Race to Net Zero delegates will explore pressing issues that underpin the acceleration of climate change policies. Attendance is free, but registration is required. 

Source: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/broadcast/read/70094

The abstract of the study;

Energy demand and decarbonization in 2025 and beyond

Nature Reviews Clean Technology volume 2, pages 4–5 (2026) Cite this article

Rapid expansion of renewables has thus far mostly covered fast-growing energy demand rather than displacing fossil fuels. New demand drivers such as data centres and cooling could reverse declining demand trends from 2024–2025 without further effort.

Key advances

  • Record expansion in solar power in the first three-quarters of 2025 was sufficient to raise total clean electricity generation faster than demand growth for the first time.
  • New loads such as artificial intelligence data centres and increasing cooling needs accelerate increasing energy demand, potentially reversing regional power demand reduction trends in 2024–2025.
  • Achieving a genuine and sustained global-scale energy transition — where renewables structurally displace fossil energy — requires greater emphasis on reducing energy demand while increasing well-being.
  • Without further demand-side efforts, projected additional power demand between 2025 and 2030 is expected to consume the projected rapid renewable energy expansion.

Read more (paywalled): https://www.nature.com/articles/s44359-025-00139-w#Ack1

Rationing energy demand, while maintaining existing standards of living for people who already have modern comforts, would require denying people in Africa, Asia and Arabia access to the same technological comforts that we enjoy.

Or maybe they plan to take away our air conditioners.

Either way this disgusting demand for energy rationing in my opinion exposes the fiction that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel. If Renewables actually were cheaper, there would be no need to build more fossil fuel capacity or ration access to energy. Simple economics would cause renewables to effortlessly dominate the energy investment landscape, without any need for policy intervention.

BBC Admit Great Barrier Reef Report Was “Misleading”

The BBC article “Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral decline on record,” was published on August 6, 2025 (with some sources listing August 5). It reports on findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) annual monitoring survey of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

Corals on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and in similar tropical systems survived during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum or mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum, roughly 9,500–5,500 years ago, with a peak around 6,000–8,000 years BP).

Great Barrier Reef

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

A small victory!!

image
image
Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral decline on record, bbc.co.uk | Contact the BBC

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The BBC article “Great Barrier Reef suffers worst coral decline on record,” was published on August 6, 2025 (with some sources listing August 5). It reports on findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) annual monitoring survey of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

Corals on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and in similar tropical systems survived during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (also called the Holocene Thermal Maximum or mid-Holocene Thermal Maximum, roughly 9,500–5,500 years ago, with a peak around 6,000–8,000 years BP).

The Mesozoic Era (roughly 252 to 66 million years ago), often called the “Age of Dinosaurs,” overlapped with the existence and evolution of coral groups that are ancestors to many modern reef-building corals.

Here’s a breakdown of the key points from the fossil record and evolutionary history:1. Modern-Style Reef-Building Corals (Scleractinians) Appeared in the Triassic

  • Scleractinian corals—the group that includes today’s hard, reef-building corals (like Acropora, Porites, and most tropical species)—first appear in the fossil record during the Middle Triassic period, around 247–237 million years ago.
  • This was early in the Mesozoic Era, shortly after the massive Permian-Triassic extinction (~252 Ma) that wiped out older coral groups.
  • Dinosaurs themselves first emerged in the Late Triassic (~230–225 Ma), so scleractinians were already present when the earliest dinosaurs appeared.
  • By the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods (when dinosaurs dominated land), scleractinians had diversified significantly and became important contributors to reefs.

2. Symbiosis with Algae Dates Back to the “Age of Dinosaurs”

  • The symbiotic relationship between corals and photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae), which powers modern reef growth in shallow, sunlit waters, goes back at least ~160 million years (Mid-Jurassic, around the time of many iconic dinosaurs like Stegosaurus or early sauropods).
  • This partnership helped scleractinians thrive through warmer Mesozoic oceans and recover from environmental stresses, similar to how it functions today.
  • Research shows this coral-algae symbiosis endured multiple climate shifts and extinctions during the dinosaur era.

3. Reef Composition During the Mesozoic

  • Early Mesozoic reefs (Triassic–Jurassic) included scleractinians alongside sponges, algae, and other organisms.
  • In the Cretaceous (the heyday of dinosaurs like Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops), many large reefs were actually built primarily by rudist bivalves (extinct, reef-forming clams), though scleractinian corals were still present and diverse.
  • Corals were abundant in warm, shallow seas, coexisting with marine reptiles (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs), ammonites, sharks, and fish.

4. Survival Through the End-Cretaceous Extinction

  • The asteroid impact ~66 million years ago (which ended non-avian dinosaurs) caused major disruptions, including ocean acidification and mass die-offs.
  • Scleractinian corals suffered losses (~45% of genera extinct in some estimates), but many lineages survived—unlike rudists, which went fully extinct.
  • This allowed the modern coral groups we know today to diversify in the Cenozoic Era.

The Mesozoic scleractinian corals (from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods, ~252–66 million years ago) are the direct ancestors of today’s modern corals—all living reef-building stony corals belong to the same order, Scleractinia. Despite this shared lineage, there are notable differences in morphology, ecology, skeletal details, symbiosis, and reef-building roles compared to modern ones. These stem from evolutionary refinements over time, environmental changes (e.g., ocean chemistry, extinctions), and adaptations.

In essence, Mesozoic scleractinians laid the groundwork for modern corals—they had similar basic biology (aragonite skeletons, hexameral symmetry, potential symbiosis)—but were often “proto-modern” with simpler colony integration, larger features, and different dominant reef partners. Evolution refined them through extinctions and environmental shifts into the more specialized, high-performance reef-builders we see today.If you’d like comparisons with specific fossils (e.g., Thecosmilia from Jurassic vs. modern Acropora), or visuals showing side-by-side growth forms, let me know!

Wyoming Moves to Pull the Plug on Costly Pronghorn and Sidewinder Wind Projects

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region.

From Watts Up With That?

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region.

From Legal Insurrection

Posted by Leslie Eastman 

The last time we looked at the Trump administration’s reversal of wind farm approvals, the Interior Department, led by Secretary Doug Burgum, had just put a deep freeze on the continuing construction of five East Coast wind farms.

These pauses included several projects familiar to our readers:

However, those are not the only projects that have been pushed by green energy industries, eco-activists, and politically motivated bureaucrats. As I have noted in a previous post, Wyoming has been the site of several of these projects.

Now Wyoming’s top land officials have moved to rescind the state wind leases underpinning the Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder projects, effectively putting both projects on a path toward cancellation.

The State Board of Land Commissioners took a series of 3-2 votes that will begin the process of canceling two controversial eastern Wyoming wind leases that the panel approved last year.

The decision came after extensive and emotional public comment Thursday opposing the leases — one related to the Pronghorn H2 Clean Energy Project in Converse County and one for the Sidewinder Clean Hydrogen Project in Niobrara County.

The State Board of Land Commissioners consists of Gov. Mark Gordon, Auditor Kristi Racines, Treasurer Curt Meier, Secretary of State Chuck Gray and Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder. Gray, Racines and Degenfelder voted in favor of rescinding the leases while Gordon and Meier opposed the motion.

Commissioners supporting the reversal — which still must play out procedurally — cited a December ruling by Eighth Judicial District Court Judge Scott Peasley that invalidated another state land lease for the Pronghorn project. That lease, on a state land parcel south of Glenrock, was unlawful, the judge concluded, because it didn’t expressly prescribe that electricity from the windfarm would be pumped into the grid — a violation of the state’s own rules.

State officials rescind wind leases for Pronghorn and Sidewinder https://t.co/oHqd6BB88M #wyoming #usa #windpower

— Power Plant World (@powerplantworld) February 11, 2026

Pronghorn H2 is a Focus Clean Energy project originally designed as a combined wind‑and‑solar facility powering still-in-development hydrogen production on about 46,000 acres in Converse County. However, after a December 2025 ruling by District Court Judge F. Scott Peasley that vacated the project’s wind lease from the state, citing the fact that wind farms on state leases must provide electricity back to the grid

The developers then nixed the hydrogen production portion and substantially reduced the acreage requirements, and then tried to sell the new plan as an effective means of energy generation in the winter-blasted state.

Focus Clean Energy announced Thursday that its Pronghorn H2 Project footprint has been reduced to about 30% of its original size, from more than 57,000 acres down to about 16,571 acres.

… The company also said it is eliminating the hydrogen production component that had been central to the project’s original vision, which means it no longer needs industrial-scale water supplies.

“Rapidly increasing energy demand means Wyoming needs additional electric generation, and the Pronghorn Project is repositioned to help meet that need,” said Paul Martin, lead developer for the Pronghorn Project. “We anticipate these significant changes will resolve many of the concerns expressed by the community.”

Martin told Cowboy State Daily the decision was driven by market conditions rather than politics.

Sidewinder is a related Focus Clean Energy wind project in neighboring Niobrara County, intended to work in tandem with Pronghorn and originally linked to clean hydrogen production. The developer plans to continue the legal battle.

Meanwhile, Focus Clean Energy, the Colorado-based Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder developer, says it is confident Wyoming’s top court will reinstate its wind lease.

“We believe we’re very likely to have that overturned at the Supreme Court, and then that just reinstates the lease and we move forward,” the company’s President Paul Martin told WyoFile.

Wyoming’s land commissioners didn’t just hit pause on another overhyped green mega‑scheme; by moving to pause the Pronghorn H2 and Sidewinder leases after emotional local testimony, a damning court ruling, and a last‑minute downsizing sales pitch, they began the process of pulling the plug on projects the public never really wanted and that still couldn’t prove they could reliably or inexpensively power that chilly corner of the country.

Many of the locals will be thrilled by this development.

Good news for eagles, hawks and other birds of the region. https://t.co/697rWJ4zi9 pic.twitter.com/WwTmCB88RI

— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) February 12, 2026

Judge Rejects Climate Dogma, Begins to Restore Integrity

In a bold stroke against the pseudoscience of climate alarmism, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg has removed a deeply flawed discussion on climate change from the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

From The CO2 Coalition

by Vijay Jayaraj

In a bold stroke against the pseudoscience of climate alarmism, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg has removed a deeply flawed discussion on climate change from the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.

Supposedly the gold standard in science education for the federal judiciary, the reference manual is a joint product of the Federal Judicial Center – overseen by Judge Rosenberg – and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Its stated purpose is to assist judges in managing cases involving complex scientific evidence and distinguish between sound science and speculation.

Yet the fourth edition’s chapter on climate change was closer to lead than gold, drawing objections from state attorneys general and others. It was a manifesto of bias, drafted by a panel of alarmists who treated computer models as gospel and disregarded empirical reality.

The model-reality divergence

The core problem with the now-deleted chapter – and indeed with the scientific approach of the climate lobby – is a reliance on the flawed assumptions of models over empirical observation of reality.

Data analyzed by Dr. Roy Spencer, covering the period from 1979 through early 2025, exposes an epic failure of these models. Satellite readings measuring the actual temperature of the troposphere differ sharply from the outputs of computer simulations, the latter predicting runaway warming and the former a modest rise of temperature. The gap is not a margin of error, but a chasm.

For decades, computer models of the climate have been used to justify draconian regulations, most notably an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant. This underpins claims of climate alarmists that CO2 emissions of fossil fuels threaten to overheat the planet and cause all manner of deadly weather events.

However, no trends of increasing weather severity are in the historical data and the risk of dying from a climate-related catastrophe – floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, extreme temperatures – has plummeted by 98% since the 1920s.

In the early 20th century, millions perished worldwide from climate disasters. Today, despite a global population that has quadrupled, the number of victims is a tiny fraction of the past. Fossil fuels have provided the cheap energy necessary to build sturdy infrastructure, heat and cool homes, mechanize agriculture and develop early warning systems. Coal, oil and natural gas have helped humankind manage the environment, not destroy it.

Judicial line of defense

Nowhere is this understanding more critical than in the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts. The federal judiciary has become a focal point of the legal war between those promoting alarmism and those defending realism and modern lifestyles.

Activists know they are losing the public debate. Ordinary families, struggling with inflation and energy costs, are not interested in sacrificing standards of living for a theoretical crisis. So, activists have turned to “lawfare.” They sue oil companies, car manufacturers and utilities, hoping to bypass the legislative process and impose “green” policies through judicial fiat.

These lawsuits rely entirely on the premise that there is an “existential” crisis. If the judge’s own handbook says the crisis is scientifically proven, the defense stands no chance. By purging the biased chapter, the Federal Judicial Center has acted to level the playing field.

America leads, the world follows

The implications of this decision extend far beyond American borders. The United States is not just another country in the global environmental debate; it is the trendsetter. Policies and legal standards established in the U.S. ripple outward, influencing legislation and court rulings in Europe, Asia and the Global South.

The U.S. light-duty vehicle emission programs are among the main sets of standards globally. The Federal Test Procedure is used to certify cars for the North American market, effectively globalizing the EPA’s methodology. In the realm of ambient air quality, the U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards serve as a model framework for nations developing their own environmental laws.

If the U.S. judiciary and the EPA were to fully embrace the alarmist narrative – legally codifying the absurd notion that CO2 and other greenhouse gases threaten life – this stance would be exported worldwide. Conversely, the U.S. sends a powerful signal when it taps the brakes on lunacy.

By removing this horribly flawed climate section, the judiciary has signaled that it will not be a rubber stamp for political activism masquerading as science. Science is a process of constant inquiry, skepticism and testing. The attempt to codify an ideologically driven and scientifically unsupported viewpoint into a manual for judges was an affront to the hundreds-year-old scientific method.

We are not facing a climatic apocalypse. We are confronted with a crisis of competence and integrity in our elite institutions. The removal of this chapter is an initial step in restoring these much-needed qualities.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

Originally published in Townhall on February 14, 2026.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.

The Real Threat to Under Salt Marsh? Certainly Not Climate Change!

More propaganda!
We have looked at Fairbourne a few times in the past. Most of the village sits about 3 meter above sea level on a sand spit of land. Until the 1860s, the land was mostly salt marshes.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Ian Magness

More propaganda!

image

A TV crime drama was inspired by the “tragic reality” of its real-life filming locations, according to actor Sir Jonathan Pryce.

Under Salt Marsh follows detectives as they race to solve the mystery of a local schoolboy’s death before a once-in-a-generation storm threatens to destroy evidence and the future of the fictional town of Morfa Halen.

Some of the show’s filming locations in Gwynedd and on Anglesey in north Wales are also facing an uncertain future due to severe weather.

The Crown actor Sir Jonathan, who plays farmer Solomon Bevan in the series which also stars Yellowstone’s Kelly Reilly, said: “It’s a thriller with an important message behind it.

“There are real towns on the west coast of Wales under threat from the sea.

“The show reflects that kind of looming ecological crisis and the community’s fight to survive and be heard.”

With most of the filming taking place in north-west Wales, Under Salt Marsh actress Reilly said the environment was “a character in itself”.

As the impending storm adds to the urgency to solve the mystery of young schoolboy Cefin’s death, it becomes an even more difficult task for ex-detective Jackie Ellis played by Reilly and her former partner DC Eric Bull.

Speaking to BBC Radio Wales, the show’s creator Claire Oakley said: “They’re at the mercy of the weather and the tides.

“I was interested in how it might feel to live somewhere where your home could get destroyed by the next big storm and how that might effect things and we started to develop this idea of a police investigation that would help us dig into these landscapes.

“They had to do this under this huge pressure of an encroaching red level storm that had the potential to completely derail the investigation and wash all of the evidence away.”

Barmouth in Gwynedd stands in as the main setting of Morfa Halen on the north-west coast.

With a population of almost 2,500, the seaside town is located on the Mawddach Estuary.

The show’s fictional community lives on the end of a tidal causeway, with high tides cutting them off from the rest of the world.

Some of the seafront scenes were filmed in Fairbourne, which has its own battle with the elements.

Fairbourne is recognised as the first place in the UK which could face evacuation due to climate change.

Its location and rising sea levels means that the town faces regular severe flooding, with Gwynedd council deciding it will stop maintaining flood defences by the 2050s.

The town could be decommissioned before then to allow over 800 local residents to be re-located elsewhere, making them the country’s first climate refugees.

The real threat facing Under Salt Marsh filming locations in Wales

We have looked at Fairbourne a few times in the past. Most of the village sits about 3 meter above sea level on a sand spit of land. Until the 1860s, the land was mostly salt marshes.

Around 1865, Solomon Andrews, a Welsh entrepreneur, purchased the promontory. Over the next few years, he built a seawall for tidal protection and several houses. The wealthy flour-maker Sir Arthur McDougall had been looking for a country estate but when he discovered this area, he soon conceived of it as a seaside resort. In July 1895, Arthur McDougall purchased a substantial acreage from land speculators, which he enlarged by additional lots the following year. He then immediately hired a builder to begin the development of a model seaside resort.

In short, the land never was habitable. It was only the construction of a seawall that made the building of a village feasible.

The BBC’s claim that “climate change” has suddenly made Fairbourne unsustainable is nonsense. It never was sustainable without a seawall. Gwynedd Council has now decided that it is not worth spending any more money on flood defence.

Sea levels at nearby Holyhead have been rising steadily at about 2.3 mm/yr since the start of records in 1938. We know from other UK locations that seas have been rising since the 19thC:

image

It has nothing to do with “climate change”, not the BBC’s version anyway, which means “man-made global warming”. Sea levels have been rising for perfectly natural reasons for a long time.

As for the decision by Gwynedd to stop maintaining flood defences, it appears that this is a money saving exercise, based on alarmist Met Office projections of sea level rise of 4.7mm a year.

An independent scientific study has concluded that the cost of repairing flood defences is a tiny fraction of the council estimate, and certainly much less than decommissioning the town.

Based on realistic estimates of sea level rise, Fairbourne is under no threat at all for the foreseeable future. As one of the authors, Dr Graham Hall, explained, Fairbourne is mainly protected by a shingle bank spit:

“Fairbourne is protected from the sea by the Ro Wen shingle spit. The flat crest is so wide and solid that in the south of the village there is room on the top for a car park. The natural spit is also strengthened by a core wall of concrete. The shingle spit is not the flimsy structure of the misleading diagram. Recent and more accurate computer modelling has shown that even an extreme storm could not do serious damage to something so solid.

Could waves flow over the top? The spit is a natural construction built by storm waves hurling pebbles and small boulders onto the sloping seaward side. As sea level rises, the spit will naturally grow higher to match the new level of the storm waves.”

As Hall points out, the existing sea wall certainly need repair and maintenance, as all flood defences to do. Other fairly conventional and relatively inexpensive, such as raising levies to protect from flooding from the estuary or landward side, have been recommended too.

But the idea that Fairbourne is soon going to be under the sea is just alarmist claptrap.

Nobody would, of course, dream of building a village in such a place now. Whether it is worth spending money to protect it is one I cannot answer. But according to the scientists, there are cheap solutions which will ensure Fairbourne remains habitable for a long time to come.

When the Weather Turns, Permitting Failure Gets Expensive

Winter Storm Fern has delivered a clear and uncomfortable reminder of how America’s energy system actually works when it is under stress.

From Watts Up With That?

By Toby Z. Rice

Winter Storm Fern has delivered a clear and uncomfortable reminder of how America’s energy system actually works when it is under stress.

During the storm, natural gas prices at Station 165 – located in Pittsylvania County, Virginia, where the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) interconnects and Appalachian gas flows toward the Southeast – spiked to roughly $150 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf), nearly fifty times the national average price last year.

This was the result of scarcity pricing. In plain terms, the market was signaling that there was not enough infrastructure to move available gas supply where it was urgently needed.

When temperatures plunge, demand spikes, and reliability matters most, the grid depends on resources that are dispatchable, fuel-secure, and available around the clock. That dependence is not ideological; it is operational.

This is where permitting reform stops being an abstract regulatory debate and becomes a consumer issue.

While much of the nation is seeing historically high natural gas prices, the hardest hit regions are the very regions across the Eastern Seaboard that have seen proposed natural gas infrastructure blocked or delayed over the past decade. 

Pipelines are proposed because there is anticipation of demand. When those pipelines cannot be built and the demand manifests, regions are forced to either turn to alternatives, force demand off the system through price, or both.

A good example is New England. While nationally, natural gas supplied approximately 41 percent of U.S. power generation during Fern, New England was powered by oil – accounting for roughly 39 percent of generation. With limited natural gas infrastructure and renewables unable to meet the demand, the region was forced to turn to a more expensive, more polluting source of power. This is not the clean, affordable future the people of New England were promised.

The painful irony is hard to miss. Policies intended to protect consumers and the environment can end up increasing prices and emissions during the moments of greatest vulnerability.

The Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is finally in service after years of litigation and delay, almost certainly would not have been built under today’s permitting regime were it not for an act of Congress. If that is what it takes to complete a single, critical pipeline, something in the system is fundamentally misaligned with reality.

Affordable and reliable energy is not optional; it is foundational. Every hospital, factory, and household depends on it. And every credible energy system depends on infrastructure that can actually be built, expanded, and operated.

Plans are underway to expand MVP and other pipeline infrastructure to deliver even more gas to regions that need it. Yet those plans are already encountering legal challenges based on assertions that additional infrastructure is unnecessary. Recent events prove otherwise.

Energy does not move on wishful thinking. It moves through pipelines and transmission lines that require permits that are timely, predictable, and grounded in law, not endless cycles of delay and litigation.

It is time to acknowledge reality. Demand is growing. Reliability margins are tightening. Winter Storm Fern is a warning that those margins will be exposed in the form of triple-digit natural gas prices. We need to return our nation to the reliable, affordable system we had just over a decade ago, and the way we can do it is through permitting reform that allows us to deliver energy when and where it is needed.

We need a permitting framework that is rigorous but workable, environmentally responsible, and decisive. One that allows critical infrastructure to be evaluated thoroughly and then, once approved, actually built and put into service. And we need this framework today.

Permitting reform is not ideological. It is practical. And it is urgent.

Toby Z. Rice is President & CEO, EQT Corporation, a global leader in Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy.  

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

New Study: A 4°C Warmer Beaufort Sea Had ‘No Sea Ice’ 11,700 – 8200 Years Ago

According to a new study, there was “no sea ice” in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea from 11,700 to 8200 years ago.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard 

For the last 3000 years the Beaufort Sea region has had “permanent sea ice.”

According to a new study, there was “no sea ice” in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea from 11,700 to 8200 years ago.

During this period, summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) averaged ~7°C, varying up to 9.6°C.

“The Early Holocene (11.7−8.2 ka) is characterized by relatively higher sea surface temperature, lower salinity, and no spring/summer sea ice until 8.5 ka on the Beaufort Sea slope.”

Modern summer SSTs average 3°C in this region, which means SSTs are at least 4°C colder than they were during the Early Holocene.

From approximately 7000 to 5000 years ago (the Mid Holocene), seasonal sea ice was present in this Beaufort Sea region.

For the last 3000 years, sea ice has been present year-round.

“…permanent sea-ice cover on the slope after 3 ka.”

Image Source: Santos et al., 2026

This new study echoes a 2020 study (Wu et al.) indicating the Beaufort Sea had “dominantly ice-free conditions” and SSTs were over 4°C warmer than today during the Early Holocene.

Image Source: Wu et al., 2020

Can grid handle next Winter Storm Fern, solar flare, or enemy attack?

U.S. mostly dodged disaster this time. What if Net Zero mandates aren’t adjusted or ended?

From CFACT

By Paul Driessen

Upset young woman wearing winter scarf standing isolated over white background, shivering

U.S. mostly dodged disaster this time. What if Net Zero mandates aren’t adjusted or ended?

Winter Storm Fern (January 23-27) dumped heavy snow and ice on more than 240,000,000 Americans across 40 states and 2,300 miles, beginning in Arizona and wrapping up in Maine.

Scores died, including 20 in New York City, where Mayor Mamdani refused to close homeless camps or compel “unhoused residents” to move indoors, instead letting them rely on the “warmth of collectivism.”

Roads and highways were impassable, 11 states declared emergencies, 30 airports closed for a day or more, and many cities recorded 10-24 inches of snow.

The New York Times asked, “What’s up with this big freeze? Some scientists see climate change link.” Two years earlier its headline warned, “Weirdly warm winter has climate fingerprints all over it, study says.” Fossil fuel fearmongering clearly never ends.

Mid-twenties temperatures in Florida clobbered citrus groves and froze iguanas. The reptiles fell from trees, providing “tastes-like-chicken” meat for sumptuous stews, curries, gumbos, and soups and helping conservation officials to cull the rampant invasive species.

There were no widespread blackouts from power failures, though there were close calls. Texas gas lines were weatherproofed after Winter Storm Uri (February 2021) and other jurisdictions had kept coal and gas generators operational, instead of opting to rely on wind and solar that were virtually useless during Fern’s mostly windless and sunless onslaught.

However, ice on trees and power lines caused prolonged power outages that left millions of homes and businesses without electricity – or heat. Two weeks later, thousands still had no electricity.

In Memphis, a friend got her power back quickly, because her home is near shops, groceries, and restaurants. But nearby areas were still without power a week after Fern, despite the local utility deploying 1,800 line workers. Several homes caught fire moments after their power was restored, perhaps because they lacked surge suppressors or their old or inadequate electrical systems couldn’t cope.

Stories were similar all across Fern’s impact area. But the United States dodged a potentially huge bullet.

Modern early-warning, communication, building, electricity, and other technologies have made our lives far safer than in the past. But big winter storms across Southwest, Midwest, East Coast, or even much of the lower 48 states still strike frequently and recall deadly historic events like these.

The School Children’s Blizzard (January 1888) sent temperatures +35 to –20 and lower within hours, dropped several feet of snow, and killed 500 people, mostly in Nebraska and most of them children.

The Great White Hurricane (March 1888) buried New York City and much of the East Coast under mountains of snow, killed over 400 people, and became the impetus for NYC’s underground subway.

The real question: Will we learn lessons from Fern and heed warnings about the US grid and too-heavy reliance on wind, solar, battery, and related (heavily Chinese) technologies in time for the next Big One?

Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling provide lessons. helpful charts, links. and readers’ comments.

* The Midcontinent Independent System Operator’s territory had an extremely close call, when hourly nameplate capacity factors for its wind turbines plunged from over 60% before Fern to 7% a day later, well below MISO’s expected 29% winter capacity value, and didn’t return to 60% for two more days.

* US Department of Energy emergency orders kept three big Indiana and Michigan coal-fired generators operating (using coal stored onsite). Otherwise, the situation would have been dire in those states.

* New England has been forcing or subsidizing heat pump installations and built a $1.6-billion transmission line to bring electricity from New York and Quebec. During Fern, natural gas prices skyrocketed, coal power had been eradicated, reliable nuclear did its part, wind was minimal, and solar was MIA. Much-hated oil became the foremost electricity generator – because extreme and sustained cold air across Québec forced the Canadians to suspend power delivery to New England!

That raises an even bigger question. What happens if large numbers of states go Net Zero, mandate heat pumps, or electric home and water heating? If they’re all relying on nearly nonexistent “renewable” energy? Of if they’re dependent on sources like Quebec and a “Clean Energy Connect” transmission line? And they’re caught in a blizzard proportionate to Fern or other historic storms?

As Orr and Rolling asked: Where do you turn when you run out of other people’s energy?

* The huge PJM Interconnection (wherein I reside) perhaps had Lady Luck on its side, because comparatively mild temperatures across the region kept demand low enough to forestall emergency alerts and load shedding (deliberate, planned interruption, or rolling blackouts), and it hasn’t gone hog wild on “renewables.” However, its own gas winterization efforts also paid off.

* The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) may have weatherized its natural gas transmission system, but higher than predicted temperatures and thus lower than expected peak power demand may have saved the region – because its enormous wind and solar fleet was simply not up to the task.

Why ERCOT – covering oil and natural gas capital Texas – would add 31 GW of solar, 9 GW of wind, and only 3 GW of gas over the past decade is inconceivable. Maybe that lone star will keep bringing it luck during the next Winter Storm Uri or Fern. But responsible energy providers shouldn’t count on it.

Other harbingers of danger must also be addressed.

More than half of the entire U.S. electric grid will soon reach high or elevated risk of blackouts, due to growing demand, accelerating retirements of reliable coal, gas, and nuclear generators, and increasing reliance on unreliable, weather-dependent wind, solar and battery storage power, according to a new North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Long-Term Reliability Assessment.

Making the grid even more vulnerable, Carrington Events triggered by giant sunspots (like AR4366 on February 1, 2026) and solar flares can send coronal mass ejections into Earth’s magnetic field. A large enough CME can electrify the planet’s surface, send massive currents into high-voltage transmission lines, fry transformers and other equipment, cause widespread blackouts lasting months or years, shut down refrigeration, transportation, water systems and our entire lives – and kill countless millions.

We must also consider risks of sabotage, terrorism, and deliberate shutdowns by malevolent foreign or domestic actors. China is our primary source not only for rare earth elements and other critical minerals, but also for wind turbines, solar panels, transformers, and grid-scale batteries.

Beijing, Moscow, and their surrogates could them as strategic weapons: ban exports to impose political goals; use trip-switches or hacker backdoors already embedded in those technologies to close down limited or vast sections of our already vulnerable grid; engage in cyber or physical infrastructure attacks; or launch electromagnetic pulse attacks from high altitude or outer space to inflict the same catastrophic damage as a huge coronal mass ejection on our grid, infrastructure, and military.

If our politicians, judges, and regulators cannot end their obsession with climate change nightmares, renewable energy fantasies and other nitpicking topics – and our nation is plunged into widespread, prolonged, and deadly blackouts – “accountability” must come in much stronger forms than merely voting them out of office. Prosecution for gross malfeasance and dereliction in office will also be in order.