Day: February 25, 2026

Recognizing Failure, Some Liberals Are Reshaping Their Climate Messaging

Did the far left ever really believe its own rhetoric when it came to climate change? True, when it comes to the positions staked out by any politician on the issues of the day, the age-old question is constantly in the back of everyone’s minds: How much of what they claim to believe is based on heartfelt, core convictions, and how much is due to outside political pressure or geared toward generating contributions?

From Watts Up With That?

By Gary Abernathy

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Did the far left ever really believe its own rhetoric when it came to climate change? True, when it comes to the positions staked out by any politician on the issues of the day, the age-old question is constantly in the back of everyone’s minds: How much of what they claim to believe is based on heartfelt, core convictions, and how much is due to outside political pressure or geared toward generating contributions?

But nowhere is this question more pertinent than when it comes to politicians and their advocacy for climate change. Why? Because it’s difficult to think of anything that comes close to rivaling the number of government mandates implemented and the amount of taxpayer dollars allocated to reshape society as has happened in the name of climate change. Surely, it wasn’t all based on empty rhetoric and misdirection, was it?

Far-left environmental and climate change groups have significantly increased their political spending over the years. In turn, election after election features liberal politicians hammering away on the alleged damage done by the fossil fuel industry. In 2024 they were at it again, highlighting the latest scary predictions about the worst-case climate change scenarios, and fervently warning of the untold horrors that would happen if Donald Trump and Republicans won in 2024.

Guess what? Once more, it all fell flat with most voters. Trump won the presidency, Republicans kept control of both the House and Senate, and across the nation GOP dominance continued in state government.

There are some Democrats who finally seem to be getting the message that their climate narrative is not resonating. A recent story in Politico noted, “Democrats are increasingly showing they have decided it’s a losing message to tout the ways in which they’d curb fossil fuel production to thwart the most dire effects of climate change.”

Apparently, the realization that Americans are no longer falling for the tired old global warming bogeyman is starting to sink in, at least for some – and a growing number seem ready to modify their rhetoric on the subject.

For instance, the Politico story noted that Sen. Brian Schatz (D) of Hawaii last year removed “climate hawk” from his X biography. And during a fall event connected to New York Climate Week, Schatz, according to Politico, said that “those of us in the climate community who are used to making a more broad argument about where we are in the sweep of history have to get comfortable making a more immediate argument that says the reason prices are going up is a deliberate policy choice of the Republican Party.”

Indeed, changing the subject from doomsday climate scenarios to more economically focused arguments seems to be the path many Democrats have decided to follow, the story noted. Makes you wonder if they ever believed their own rhetoric in the first place. But climate change messaging is not their only problem. Reality is making their argument more difficult all the time.

The harsh winter experienced so far has resulted in Americans clearly witnessing the limits of their preferred energy sources. For example, the last week of January saw social media populated with images of solar panels caked with snow. The real possibility of frozen wind turbines is an annual concern, as described here.

And as the Associated Press reported last winter, “frigid temperatures from Chicago to northern Texas have made life painful for electric-vehicle owners, with reduced driving range and hours of waiting at charging stations.”

Based on apocalyptic warnings about the necessity of changing our ways, billions have been spent to prop up alternatives like wind and solar. But in New England, for instance – where an aggressive push has been made to build large-scale offshore wind projects – the electricity needed to combat the recent frigid air mass was generated mostly by natural gas, oil and nuclear power, as usual.

Left to the tender mercies of wind and solar, New Englanders and most of the U.S. population would have been a cold and stranded lot indeed.

Politicians from the political left tamping down or even forsaking their doomsday climate talk could just be a short-term development while polling shows voters don’t consider climate change a top priority.

Or, it could be a more long-lasting phenomenon. Albert Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” It can be argued that most leftwing politicians never understood it will enough; they just parroted the talking points. Now that they’re realizing voters aren’t listening anymore, they’re downplaying the issue – raising questions about the level of their sincerity in the first place.

The left has been enslaved to their climate change dogma for decades. As such, they’re not ready to give it up entirely. But they are trying to craft a new message – “affordability” – around a tired old issue. Apparently, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but you can simplify the one that he already knows. Will voters think Rover is smarter – or still dutifully obedient?

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

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

Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions of Trees Where Once Thought to Be Barren

For decades, the narrative surrounding the Sahara was one of unstoppable desertification—a vast, arid landscape slowly swallowing everything in its path, including Europe alarmists have warned.

From No Trick Zone

By P Gosselin

The Sahara Desert has shrunk, satellite images confirm…evidence of a real ecological shift

For decades, the narrative surrounding the Sahara was one of unstoppable desertification—a vast, arid landscape slowly swallowing everything in its path, including Europe alarmists have warned.

Symbol image generated by Grok AI

However, recent scientific findings are painting a much more hopeful and complex picture. Thanks to advanced satellite technology and Artificial Intelligence, researchers have discovered something remarkable: The edges of the Sahara and the Sahel zone are becoming significantly greener.

A real ecological shift

In the past, satellite imagery was often too “blurry” to detect individual trees in arid regions. Sparse vegetation was frequently overlooked, leading to an underestimation of the actual biomass.

By using high-resolution satellite data and deep-learning algorithms, scientists have now been able to count individual trees and shrubs. The results are stunning: there are billions of trees in areas previously thought to be mostly barren. This isn’t just a correction of old data; it’s evidence of a real ecological shift.

Why is the Desert Greening?

Several factors are driving this “greening” effect at the world’s largest hot desert. Firstly, in certain regions of the Sahel, precipitation levels have risen over the last few decades.

Scondly, the CO2 Fertilization Effect: While rising CO2 levels are claimed to be a major driver of climate change, they are definitely a potent fertilizer for plants. Higher CO2 concentrations allow trees to use water more efficiently. They can keep their pores (stomata) partially closed to prevent evaporation.

Thirdly, shifts in how often fires occur in these regions have allowed young saplings to reach maturity instead of being destroyed in their early stages.

Why Does This Matter?

This findings have profound implications for our planet: More trees mean more carbon dioxide is being pulled from the atmosphere. Trees provide shade, reduce soil erosion, and help retain moisture in the ground, making the environment more livable for local communities.

Moreover, a greener landscape supports a wider variety of insects, birds, and mammals, strengthening the local ecosystem.

This reminds us that nature is resilient and that our understanding of the Earth’s ecosystems is constantly evolving. The desert is not just a place of sand and heat—it is a place of hidden life, slowly reclaiming its ground.

Claim: The “Open Fridge Effect” Baltic Sea Level Drop is Proof of Global Warming

The last time these extreme weather conditions were recorded was shortly after the Little Ice Age.

The last time these extreme weather conditions were recorded was shortly after the Little Ice Age.

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

The last time these extreme weather conditions were recorded was shortly after the Little Ice Age.

Experts warn of rapid loss of water in the Baltic Sea: ‘A vibrant reef is turning into an underwater wasteland’

By Katarzyna Kubacka
Published on 22/02/2026 – 14:19 GMT+1

At the beginning of February, the water level in the Baltic Sea dropped sharply. Experts tell Euronews it is a result of climate change.

…

The situation, although it has not happened for 140 years, is caused by atmospheric factors. On the surface, these should not be a cause for concern, but, as Dr Tomasz Kijewski of the Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences told Euronews, such a deviation is a glaring example of the impact of climate change on the environment. The Arctic plays the first fiddle here.

…

“The long-lasting strong easterly winds persisting since the beginning of January have pushed water masses through the Danish Straits towards the North Sea, resulting in a drop in levels throughout the basin,” reads a post by the Institute of Oceanology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. “As long as this meteorological configuration continues, water is being ‘held down’ at the south-eastern end of the basins, with levels locally decreasing.”

…

As he explains, the mass of frigid air that has always existed over the Arctic and has, as it were, sealed it off from the rest of the world is beginning to ‘unseal’, having a significant effect on the temperature of atmospheric currents.

“We jokingly call it the open fridge effect,” says the biologist. “When we open the fridge, air escapes down the bottom and we get cold feet.”

…Read more: https://www.euronews.com/2026/02/22/experts-warn-of-rapid-loss-of-water-in-the-baltic-sea-a-vibrant-reef-is-turning-into-an-un

I know some of you doubters might think it less than convincing that a rare post Little Ice Age weather condition known as “the open fridge effect” is proof of global warming, but we all know the strongest evidence of global warming is extreme winter conditions.

Let’s hope the world doesn’t tip over into global cooling, otherwise we might lose all our snow.

Solar Industry Searches for a Message (it is not economics)

“But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.”

From The Master Resource

By David Bergeron

“But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.” – David Bergeron, SunDanzer (below)

I just returned from the Intersolar & Energy Storage North America conference in San Diego where the keynote address focused on how the long-duration storage industry can move forward under the headwinds of the current administration. Their strategy? Better messaging, shifting from climate-change arguments to affordability, reliability, and resilience.

But messaging isn’t the problem. The economics, the numbers, are. If solar is truly affordable, reliable, and resilient, the suppliers should say so plainly: in cents per kWh, free of explicit subsidies and mandates.

Cost and reliability have always been the problem with solar. The price of solar has fallen greatly in the past 30 years, and battery prices are falling, too, so there is hope that solar with batteries can become economically viable in more and more applications. But where is it viable today? That is the question the industry should be answering—clearly, directly, and in dollars and cents.

At Intersolar, I went to a few vendors promoting residential solar-and-battery systems and asked a simple question: “If I go completely solar with battery backup, what is my approximate cost of energy (cents/kWh), assuming normal amortization and maintenance?” No one I spoke to could answer that basic, simple question.

This is surprising, if not stunning. It should be the most important number in the industry. These vendors promoting solar against competing energy sources—gas, propane, coal, nuclear, and others—should know their cost for comparison. Even if solar is more expensive, some might choose it for the sake of independence; that’s fair. But if the industry cannot state its delivered cost of electricity, it is not ready to claim “affordability.”

As a residential customer, I can buy reliable electricity from many utilities for 10–15 cents/kWh (25–50 cents in California). So what is the delivered cost of residential solar with battery backup? My simple calculation indicates it might be 15–30 cents/kWh for residential systems in a sunny region, depending on the size of the battery. But that system would still not be as reliable as grid power. You can add a backup generator, but the cost per kWh will increase another 10 cents or so.

Even at 25–40 cents/kWh, solar can make sense in some places—and this is where the industry should focus: the markets where the numbers work without heroic assumptions. But as for most Americans in most places (excluding blue-states Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut), home solar is approximately double the cost of grid electricity–and with a lot less transaction cost and risk.

For utility-scale systems, the same price-signal test applies. If solar were truly affordable, someone could offer a fixed price to a utility that the utility would happily purchase without government subsidies or mandates. This should be the goal of the on-grid solar industry: a competitive price with no subsidy (no Investment Tax Credit, in particular). They claim they are there, but the most honest referee is procurement. If solar were truly a better value to utilities—delivered, firmed, and reliable — utilities would freely choose it.  There is a reason that most new data centers are opting for natural gas power rather than solar.

“Affordability” cannot be a slogan. It must be a price. The industry should publish all-in, delivered cents-per-kWh ranges under standard assumptions—financing, maintenance, replacement, and reliability—and stand behind them. If solar is competitive, the market will validate it. If it is not, no amount of messaging will change the arithmetic.

“Reliability” is another word I heard at the conference used to describe solar. I agree that with enough battery capacity, solar can be considered reliable 24/7 power—but at what cost? Solar is fundamentally intermittent and can only be made reliable with significant battery expense. That is not an argument against solar. It is an argument for honesty in the price signal.

Conclusion

So when the solar lobby comes to town claiming solar is affordable, reliable, and resilient, a simple question should follow: What is the delivered cost per kWh, and how much of that price depends on subsidies, mandates, or special rate structures? If the answer is unclear, the claim is marketing, not economics.

The ITC is ending, and net-metering subsidies are waning in many key states. The training wheels are coming off. It’s time for solar to compete on price. It can in some places, and as time and technology advance—especially with energy storage—solar might one day be a significant energy source. But it needs to focus on reducing cost and proving it in the only language the market understands: price signals. The political winds that blow solar to and fro would calm if solar were economical. That is a better path to success.

———————–

 David Bergeron is a solar technologist and founder/CEO of SunDanzer, a free-market, off-grid solar company based in Tucson, Arizona. Bergeron’s letter, “End DOE’s Loans/Grants Now!” to Jigar Shah, formerly director of the $400 billion Loan Programs Office, is a rare example of a free-market business leader putting principle first.

Cuba Hits Net Zero First—And the Lights Go Out. Victory?

Widespread blackouts, humanitarian challenges, and reliance on emergency measures like increased solar panel installations (with Chinese assistance adding ~1,000 MW of solar recently).

Intensified US sanctions and executive actions (under the Trump administration) blocking oil shipments from countries like Venezuela and Mexico.

Resulting near-collapse of oil imports (e.g., reports of zero oil imports in January 2026 for the first time in a decade).

Cuba is facing an acute fuel and electricity shortage, exacerbated by:

Widespread blackouts, humanitarian challenges, and reliance on emergency measures like increased solar panel installations (with Chinese assistance adding ~1,000 MW of solar recently).

Intensified US sanctions and executive actions (under the Trump administration) blocking oil shipments from countries like Venezuela and Mexico.

Resulting near-collapse of oil imports (e.g., reports of zero oil imports in January 2026 for the first time in a decade).

This has drastically reduced fossil fuel use (especially imported oil for power generation and transport), pushing the country’s energy consumption and emissions toward very low levels—essentially “net zero” by forced deprivation rather than deliberate, prosperous transition.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cuba Becomes The First Country To Reach Net Zero. Shouldn’t We Be Celebrating?

From The Manhattan Contrarian

 By Francis Menton

There it was on the front page of Saturday’s New York Times: with a small assist from the United States, the island nation of Cuba has almost entirely ended the use of fossil fuels. Finally, we have the first country in the world to achieve the climate movement’s Holy Grail and nirvana — Net Zero! Or at least a very close approximation. This should be cause for a huge celebration.

You would think that the Times, which has been demanding the elimination of fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades, would be leading the celebrations. But weirdly, now that Cuba has finally shown the way, the Times chooses to put a completely different spin on the achievement. The headline and subheadline are (print edition): “U.S. Choking Oil Deliveries To Cuba Ports; Military Action Brings a Nation to Its Knees.”

The piece reports that the Trump administration is helping Cuba to achieve Net Zero by preventing oil tankers from landing there. Somehow in this piece, that is spun as a bad thing. It has brought Cuba “to its knees.”

The funny thing is that here in the U.S., it was just over a year ago that we had President Biden and an administration full of zealous environmentalists who were using every governmental power at their disposal to force Americans to stop using fossil fuels. By Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021, Biden had directed all federal agencies to pursue an aggressive “all of government” operation to achieve “net zero” on an accelerated schedule. Goals number 1 and 2 from that EO are “100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030,” and “100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035.” In 2023, the Department of Transportation released a “Blueprint” for eliminating all carbon emissions from the transportation sector. In 2024 EPA released a plan to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity generation. Similar initiatives were everywhere in the government.

Did the Times ever suggest that government forcing an end to the use of fossil fuels was “bringing America to its knees”? Or even that forcing the end of fossil fuels was any sort of a problem? If they ever suggested anything like that, I never saw it. What I saw instead was that the Times was the biggest cheerleader for the use of government coercion to suppress the use of fossil fuels, at least if the use was by Americans.

And yet, if you believe yesterday’s article, the banishment of fossil fuels, which was to be such a boon to the United States, is somehow a problem in Cuba. From the Times article:

In Cuba, people are struggling with frequent blackouts, shortages of gasoline and cooking gas and dwindling supplies of diesel that power the nation’s water pumps. Trash is piling up, food prices are soaring, schools are canceling classes and hospitals are suspending surgeries.

Here is a picture from the Times of the “garbage piling up”:

What am I missing? Since when are fuels like oil, gasoline, natural gas, and diesel any longer necessary, or even useful or economic, for providing energy to the people? The Times for years has been pounding a relentless drumbeat emphasizing that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to produce energy, and all sane people are flocking to them as the best sources. For example, from August 17, 2023:

As the planet registers the highest temperatures on record, rising in some places to levels incompatible with human life, governments around the world are pouring trillions of dollars into clean energy to cut the carbon pollution that is broiling the planet. The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal. Private investment is flooding into companies that are jockeying for advantage in emerging green industries.

In other words, to eliminate use of fossil fuels all Cuba would have to do would be to slap up a few wind turbines and solar panels, and then it could run its economy on the abundant renewable electricity without need for any of those icky fossil fuels. And saving money too! Cuba actually has a bunch of wind farms. Why doesn’t it just crank them up to provide the power formerly supplied by the fossil fuels?

It seems like the people who are writing these pieces for the Times don’t read their own newspaper.

Meanwhile, let me be the first to congratulate the people of Cuba on being the first to achieve Net Zero.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cuba’s renewable energy efforts have accelerated significantly in recent years, driven by a long-standing goal to reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency, and build resilience amid chronic shortages and external pressures like U.S. sanctions. These efforts are part of the country’s National Energy Transition Strategy (published in September 2024) and its updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement, submitted in early 2025.Key Targets and Commitments

  • Cuba aims to increase renewables to 24% of electricity generation by 2030 (original goal from earlier plans).
  • More recent commitments target 26% of total energy supply from renewables by 2035.
  • Long-term vision: Achieve full electricity generation from national resources (renewables + domestic oil) by mid-century, with ambitions for near-total renewable electricity eventually.
  • Installed renewable capacity has grown rapidly, especially in solar, with a focus on photovoltaic (PV) parks.

The Camel’s Nose (sorta) Under the Kentucky Tent

For those who haven’t caught it, please see my updated count of the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits. Now, at least for today, there are 29 instead of 30. The ineptly done Carrboro v Duke Energy is gone, as of last week. It was nice how the judge issuing that order alluded to Duke Energy’s Motion to Dismiss gripe about a particular “Kentucky” disinformation ad accusation, but I submit the small exploration done by Duke Energy’s attorneys revealed only the proverbial ‘camel’s nose under the tent.’

From Watts Up With That?

From the Gelbspan Files

Russell Cook

For those who haven’t caught it, please see my updated count of the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits. Now, at least for today, there are 29 instead of 30. The ineptly done Carrboro v Duke Energy is gone, as of last week. It was nice how the judge issuing that order alluded to Duke Energy’s Motion to Dismiss gripe about a particular “Kentucky” disinformation ad accusation, but I submit the small exploration done by Duke Energy’s attorneys revealed only the proverbial ‘camel’s nose under the tent.’ When the fossil fuel industry folks with influence grow a spine and explore much deeper – or when somebody ends up doing their work for them – every one of the “ExxonKnew” lawsuits can implode, enabling the public to see where the real disinformation has been in the climate issue this entire time.

Right at the outset of my Dec 2024 dissection of Carrboro, I said it was an outlier climate lawfare effort, and I detailed at length how the law firm representing the town very oddly decided to rely on the worthless evidence from an outfit called “Energy and Policy Institute,” for the accusations about Duke Energy running old disinformation campaigns which ‘attempted to reposition global warming as theory.’ Notice in the screencapture below, the lawsuit tried to tie Duke to the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) via that worthless ‘leaked industry directive’, and then say Duke was responsible for the campaign effort in Kentucky

As I showed in my dissection – which I advise new readers to go through to be up to speed on what I say here – that was weird for the law firm to do that at several levels.

Repeating what I noted above in my opening paragraph, Duke Energy’s Motion to Dismiss pointed out the North Carolina town of Carrboro was trying to an ad campaign that happened in Kentucky to Duke Energy. To his own credit, the judge granting the Motion pointed out just how “fatally imprecise and lacking in concreteness” the overall accusation was about Duke ‘deceiving the public,’ but he only glanced off of the ludicrous accusation about the Kentucky ‘deception’ campaign. The one with the horse ad, as I showed in my dissection post. My GelbspanFiles blog is the one and only place where readers can quickly zoom in on the ad text and see for themselves how there’s no actual deliberate deception going on by an energy company about climate science. And see how the Edison Electric Institute had no actual involvement in the genuine ad campaign seen by the public. None.

Too bad neither the judge nor Duke Energy pursued that fatal fault to any depth at all. The core claim that Duke is intimate with the internal workings of the Edison Electric Institute would be a stretch difficult to prove absolutely true; but the plaintiffs fail abysmally to present even the most basic of prima facie cases that EEI spearheaded a disinformation campaign – their ‘evidence’ implodes in their faces. Worse, as I noted in my dissection of Carrboro, the filing’s use of three newspaper advertorials which the Western Fuels Association’s “Information Council for the Environment” PR campaign published fatally undercuts all of the other lawsuits which rely on two never-published ads ( – never-published! – and another horribly degraded photocopy of one that was published) sourcing from Greenpeace USA neé Ozone Action.

Despite the assortment of ‘spin’ that this case was something unique, it was absolutely nothing more than another in a string of meritless lawsuits claiming an energy company ‘knew’ about the harm of global warming, but sought to hide that knowledge’ by deceptively ‘repositioning global warming’ in the eyes of the public.

Duke Energy dodged a bullet courtesy of the maladroit handling by Carrboro‘s chosen law firm, but this dismissal won’t prevent new versions of these from being regurgitated in some other ‘novel’ way. The January 23, 2026 Michigan v BP lawsuit was also described as ‘novel’ … but predictably, it was nothing more than the same old predictable regurgitation about crooked skeptic scientists employed in industry-orchestrated disinfo campaigns. It’s the literal best the enviro-activist climate lawfare mob has.

This will stop the moment someone with major influence and power shoves – to use the allegory I started with here – the Carrboro nose harder under the tent, then keeps on pushing and ultimately drives a dagger through the heart of the central accusations for all the world to see – Exxon et al. didn’t know, and they never declared “Victory will be achieved when we pay Dr Wei-Hock Soon $1.2 million to reposition global warming as theory (not fact) via deceptive newspaper advertorials.”

RealClear Politics Is Right: The Climate Hoax Is a Massive Financial Scam

RealClear Politics recently posted an article titled “Was Climate Change the Greatest Financial Scam in History?” in which Stephen Moore argues that the trillions of dollars spent on climate action have had no effect in stopping climate change but has slowed development and poverty reduction. Moore is right. Not only has the spending resulted in no change in the rate of warming or reductions in the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the money was spent in a way that made life worse for people around the globe.

From Climate Realism

By Linnea Lueken

RealClear Politics recently posted an article titled “Was Climate Change the Greatest Financial Scam in History?” in which Stephen Moore argues that the trillions of dollars spent on climate action have had no effect in stopping climate change but has slowed development and poverty reduction. Moore is right. Not only has the spending resulted in no change in the rate of warming or reductions in the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but the money was spent in a way that made life worse for people around the globe.

Moore references the climate spending estimate recently calculated by Bjorn Lomborg, which comes out to at least $16 trillion over the past 30 years.

“And for what?” asks Moore, “not a single life has been or will be saved by this shameful and colossal misallocation of human resources.

“The war on safe and abundant fossil fuels has cost countless lives in poor countries and made those countries poorer by blocking affordable energy,” Moore continued.

This is absolutely true.

Fossil fuels are cheaper, more reliable, and more energy dense than renewable energy sources. Mainstream media outlets regularly claim that renewables like wind and solar are cheaper because their “fuel” –the wind and sunlight—are free. That’s true but largely irrelevant. The collection of that energy is not free, not even close. The most commonly referenced metric for the cost of different energy sources is the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE). However, the LCOE measurement ignores many of the major costs that are unique to intermittent resources like wind and solar. These include special subsidies only they receive via renewables credits, the cost of backing the power up for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, massive overbuilding, and transmission costs to remote areas.

As discussed in many Climate Realism posts, including here, here, and here, when the full costs are accounted for, wind and solar are consistently some of the most expensive energy sources. For instance, when full system costs are included, natural gas comes out at $40 per megawatt-hour, while solar, often touted as the least expensive renewable, actually tops the chart at $413 per megawatt-hour. (See graphic below)

Figure 1: Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity, using Texas as a baseline, in dollars per megawatt-hour. From the ARC Scorecard: https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Apr-25-ARC-Scorecard.pdf

Markets and communities did not pick wind and solar, and would not have, were it not for massive incentives, restrictions on historic energy sources, and various state mandates. Subsidies keep the renewables industry afloat in the West. The media, which should know better, claim that fossil fuels receive massive federal subsidies, but the opposite is true. Green energy receives much, much more. (See figure below)

Figure 2: Data from the EIA Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Years 2016–2022 report, Table A6. Estimates of energy-specific direct expenditures, fiscal years (FY) 2016-22. https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy

Under president Biden, despite accounting for only 21 percent of domestic electricity production, wind and solar received the largest share of direct and indirect subsidies, approximately 46 percent on their own. As a comparison, nuclear produces 18 percent of U.S. electricity and only receives a measly 1.5 percent of available federal subsidies. Fossil fuels make up about 60 percent of electricity production and receive 13 percent of subsidies, most of which came in the form of business tax deductions that are available to all businesses, not direct payments.

Poorer nations have been prevented from developing their own resources and electrical grids in the name of climate, in part due to private banks following the lead of government-backed international development banks and refusing to finance projects that are deemed “dirty” or those that have a carbon footprint.

And yet, as Moore points out, “the temperature of the planet has not been altered by one-tenth of a degree.”

Correct, and what’s more, carbon dioxide has not slowed in increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. (See figure below)

Moore correctly points out that the trillions of dollars spent could have been better used elsewhere, like in aiding those aforementioned developing nations with real energy investment and infrastructure plans to help further harden against natural weather disasters. There is indeed a massive opportunity cost involved, and the cost is now truly sunk.

If more of the mainstream media had been willing to ask the right questions and lean in on realism instead of green washing, trillions could have been saved from this financial scam. RealClear Politics does a great service by publishing harsh but honest articles like Moore’s; other outlets should do the same.

Tiny Amounts of Water in CO2 Pipelines Could Cause Catastrophic Release of Asphyxiating Gas

On April 3rd 2024, a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured at the Lake Charles Pump Station in southwest Louisiana. Over the next two hours, a plume of dense white vapour spread across the surrounding rural area. Local road blocks were put in place by emergency services, but thankfully no human casualties were reported. The release was relatively small at 300 tonnes, compared to a more serious 6,000 tonnes leak in Missouri in 2020, and windy conditions stopped the cloud falling to the ground.

From The Daily Sceptic

By Chris Morrison

On April 3rd, 2024, a carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured at the Lake Charles Pump Station in southwest Louisiana. Over the next two hours, a plume of dense white vapour spread across the surrounding rural area. Local road- blocks were put in place by emergency services, but thankfully no human casualties were reported. The release was relatively small at 300 tonnes, compared to a more serious 6,000 tonnes leak in Missouri in 2020, and windy conditions stopped the cloud falling to the ground. In areas with any human or animal habitation, large sudden releases are potentially fatal since heavier-than-air CO2 can drop like a stone, drive out oxygen and asphyxiate anyone beneath. One line of enquiry, common when such incidents occur, was that the rupture was caused by the formation of carbonic acid. This is a major problem in CO2 pipelines since the acid can form with trace amounts of water – as little as 100 parts per million. Just one further hazard to consider as the hard-Left Miliband lunatics press ahead with billion-pound plans to run hundreds of miles of near-surface, large-diameter pipes around the north of England to bury CO2 in quantities that will have no measurable effect on any change in the climate.

But of course that is not really the point. Around £22 billion is planned to be spent in the UK on the potentially dangerous attempt to capture CO2 and bury it in likely compromised former gas fields under the sea. Like equally useless wind power, the subsidy-spraying will ensure plenty of returns for state-coddled profiteers, while wealth-destroying, joke green jobs can be claimed to be created.

On Monday, the Daily Sceptic reported on plans to build a 120-mile pipeline from cement and lime works in Staffordshire to Morecombe Bay via Cheshire and the Wirral. The pipe, known as Peak Cluster, will run close to a number of towns and villages including Macclesfield, Ellesmere Port and Willaston. In the North-East, it is planned to run a near 60-mile Humber pipeline through a number of urban or semi-urban areas including Goole, Howden, Scunthorpe, Barton-upon-Humber, Brigg, Immingham, South Killingholme and Hedon. The pipe will cross the estuary and run close to Hull’s eastern and southern fringes and associated industrial zones.

Carbon capture is not a new technology and the Americans have a great deal of experience in running it since CO2  is often injected into wells to enhance the removal of oil and gas deposits. Moving CO2 around in large pipes needs handling with great care, and the overall safety record does not inspire complete confidence. According to the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) database to 2021, corrosion, including both internal and external, arising from carbonic acid formation was one of the main causes of onshore CO2 incidents. Corrosion due to the carbonic acid accounted for a notable proportion of CO2 accidents, with material failure and weld issues being other leading causes.

In the oil and gas business, CO2 corrosion is known as ‘sweet corrosion’. Water at levels down to 50 parts per million is difficult to remove, particularly over a long pipe with numerous entry points. Over time, the dilute carbonic acid can lead to thinning of the pipe wall, pitting or severe local attack. Stainless steel is a safer material to use, but the cost is seen as prohibitive. Even controlling water within the pipe might not be enough since there could also be a problem with surface moisture entering micro cracks in defective or ageing welds.

Welds have been identified as a significant weak spot in CO2 pipeline construction. Data have shown corrosion pits clustering near welds when water is present. Welding along the Peak Cluster pipeline is likely to be done mostly on site in an open trench using common circumferential girth welds. In total, nearby residents need to hope that around 15,000 welds are made to the highest standards.

It is often noted that natural gas is transported in pipes to almost every home in the country, so why worry about moving CO2 around, particularly, as some claim, it will save the planet. But natural gas is a vital resource that creates wealth, powers a modern economy and stops the population from freezing in winter. Moving CO2 around does none of these things, and it does not save the planet. It is a monstrous exercise in virtue-signalling and, if plans for its expansion across northern England go ahead, it presents an unnecessary danger to local inhabitants for years to come. If you don’t believe your correspondent on this, try building a three-foot diameter CO2 pipe through Islington.

Saving the planet is a truly laughable claim. The Peak Cluster will remove 0.00008% of annual global CO2 emissions from what is described as the world’s largest cement decarbonisation initiative. If you think you can measure the effect this will have on global warming, there is probably a statistical post waiting for you in a British university specialising in Covid alarms and weather attribution guesses. Meanwhile, the finances behind carbon capture are pure Florida swampland territory. Assume that the Peak Cluster pipeline costs £500 million and allow a similar additional amount for its share of the £4 billion Morecombe Bay final processing and dumping site. Using these figures, consult Grok’s back-of-an envelope facility to calculate the annual cost of removing all global annual CO2. Ignore a trillion or so error either way, but it seem that following the UK’s lead in this world-beating green technology would cost around 14 times the GDP of the entire world.

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