{"id":265268,"date":"2023-07-04T09:27:02","date_gmt":"2023-07-04T07:27:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=265268"},"modified":"2023-07-04T09:27:05","modified_gmt":"2023-07-04T07:27:05","slug":"the-myth-of-replacing-fossil-fuels","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=265268","title":{"rendered":"The Myth Of Replacing Fossil Fuels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (see update below)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A hat tip to the commenter on one of my posts who was kind enough to give me a heads-up as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Mark BLR June 30, 2023 2:23 am<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BP handed over the production of their \u201cStatistical Review of World Energy\u201d to an outfit called the \u201cEnergy Institute\u201d at the end of last year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They released the new version, with annual data updated to 2022, on Monday (4 days ago).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The latest (.xlsx) spreadsheet can be downloaded from the following URL :
https:\/\/www.energyinst.org\/statistical-review\/resources-and-data-downloads<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Since I had the new data, I thought I\u2019d update the following graphic that I made a few years ago, which only covered up to 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1. The 2019 version of energy consumption.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I put that out, people were saying things like \u201cYou don\u2019t understand. Solar and wind are growing exponentially! Just wait a few years and you\u2019ll see!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, having now waited a few years, here\u2019s the 2022 version. This time I\u2019ve split out fossil fuels as a separate line. I\u2019ve also added a line for traditional biomass. All the data is from the BP spreadsheet linked above except traditional biomass, which is from Our World In Data<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2. The 2022 version, including traditional biomass and fossil fuels as separate lines.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are some very interesting things about this graphic. First, all the solar and wind in the world combined doesn\u2019t provide even a third of the energy we get from wood and dung.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, I can hear some people thinking \u201cWait a minute, what about all the nuclear and the hydroelectric? I\u2019ve seen charts where they are much larger! Why is the violet line so near to the red line?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, the simplest answer is \u2026 we\u2019re being lied to. Those charts you\u2019re thinking about only show the actual energy for fossil fuels. For fossil fuels alone, they report the real energy we use to heat our houses, cook our food, power our cars and factories, and all the rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But regarding all the other sources except fossil fuels, the nuclear, hydro, various renewables, and the rest, in every case the true energy numbers have all been multiplied by about two and a half.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why? Well, here\u2019s the explanation from the BP folks:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3. The explanation from BP about the \u201cinput-equivalent\u201d method used to make nuclear and everything else but fossil fuels look bigger than they are.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But that \u201ctwo and a half times reality\u201d is just imaginary energy. You can\u2019t use it to heat your house or run a factory. My graphics above show the actual energy consumed. And the truth is, nuclear provides less than 2% of our global energy needs, as does wind. And solar provides less than 1%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t believe me? Here\u2019s Our World In Data on the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4. Percentage of energy consumption by source. DATA SOURCE<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s worth noting that traditional biomass is second only to fossil fuels in providing us with our daily energy, and that fossil plus traditional biomass provide us with ~ 93% of all the energy we use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(A word in passing\u2014if you\u2019d prefer to deal with real energy numbers rather than imaginary \u201cinput-equivalent\u201d figures, look for the word \u201cConsumption\u201d in the description of the data. That\u2019s the amount of energy that is actually consumed, not the \u201cinput-equivalent\u201d fantasy figures that the alarmists like to quote.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s the rude reality. There\u2019s no way we will get off of fossil fuels for decades and decades. And until we have a market-ready equally inexpensive replacement for fossil fuels, all that fighting against them will do is increase energy costs, and that will assuredly screw the poor today<\/a> \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And while screwing the poor today in the false hope of helping them in the year 2050 isn\u2019t a crime \u2026 perhaps it should be. Because here\u2019s the direction the lunacy is going.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5. Investment in solar energy and fossil fuels, 2013 and 2023<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IEA people are celebrating this, thinking it\u2019s a big win for renewables \u2026 but here is the 2023 investment in fossil fuels and solar per 2023 kilowatt-hour of energy consumed from each source:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6. 2023 investment in fossil fuels and solar energy, per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy consumed by each source.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We\u2019re spending far more on solar than the real-world sale price \u2026 \u201ccheapest form of energy\u201d, my okole \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s another way to consider the insanity. According to the Manhattan Institute, we\u2019ve spent $5 trillion on wind, solar, and biofuels in the last two decades. That works out to $0.18 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of wind + solar + biofuel energy consumed \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That subsidy alone is more than the US electricity sales price, which itself is jacked up by useless renewable sources. Many US states that run on coal and gas charge about $0.11 per kWh for electricity. Here in California, with lots of renewables, I pay $0.28 per kWh \u2026 grrrr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion? <\/strong>We\u2019re paying through the nose for useless, intermittent, unreliable renewable energy. After spending literally trillions of dollars on solar and wind, their combined contribution to the world energy situation is under two percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under. Two. Percent.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trivially small. Meaningless. Makes no difference. Lost in the noise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But instead of admitting that and stopping the foolishness, politicians continue shoveling further billions of your and my money down a rathole and accomplishing \u2026 well \u2026nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think of all the good we could actually have done with those five trillion dollars spent over two decades on meaningless renewables. That works out to six hundred and eighty million dollars per day, or two hundred fifty billion per year<\/strong><\/em> \u2026 the number of pressing real-world problems we could have solved with that amount of money is incalculable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want a list of what the money could be spent on, you couldn\u2019t do better than the Copenhagen Consensus\u2019s list of\u00a012 of the best investments<\/a>\u00a0we could make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 12 best investments for the world<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The 12 best policies, our experts have identified, cover a wide range of areas: tuberculosis, education, maternal and newborn health, agricultural research and development, malaria, e-procurement, nutrition, land tenure security, chronic diseases, trade, child immunization and skilled migration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These have both costs and benefits. The annual costs, as shown in the figure below, rise from $30 billion to almost $50 billion by the end of the decade, for an average cost of $41 billion per year. The 2030 cutoff just denotes the end of the SDG era \u2014 these policies would also be phenomenally efficient in the years and decades after. Indeed, for some of them, the researchers estimated the costs and benefits far beyond 2030, as indicated in the individual analyses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

These have both costs and benefits. The annual costs, as shown in the graph above, rise from $30 billion to almost $50 billion by the end of the decade, for an average cost of $41 billion per year. The 2030 cutoff just denotes the end of the SDG era \u2014 these policies would also be phenomenally efficient in the years and decades after. Indeed, for some of them, the researchers estimated the costs and benefits far beyond 2030, as indicated in the individual chapters.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s just one look at the difference $280 billion could make if spent wisely over the next seven years. 4.2 million lives saved, $1.1 trillion in economic benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, here\u2019s all the difference the $250 billion dollars\u00a0per year<\/strong>\u00a0spent on solar, wind, and biofuels over the last two decades made to atmospheric CO2 levels, the CO2 \u201cproblem\u201d that the trillions of wasted dollars are supposed to be solving.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Like I said \u2026 grrrr.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[UPDATE] <\/strong>Over at his substack<\/a>, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has discussed the new BP data as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The figure below shows that in 2022, more than 18% of total energy consumption came from non-fossil sources. That\u2019s the highest it has been in my lifetime.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

Over the past decade, carbon-free energy consumption has increased as a proportion of total consumption from less than 14% to above 18%.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, he\u2019s totally misrepresenting the situation. First, he\u2019s not including traditional biomass, which is larger than all his \u201cnon-fossil\u201d sources together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next, his \u201cnon-fossil sources\u201d (hydro, nuclear, wind, biofuels, solar, geothermal, other) only total 7.5% of total energy, not 18%. See Figure 4 above for confirmation. He\u2019s showing you the \u201cinput-adjusted\u201d fake data.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once we include traditional biomass (another \u201cnon-fossil source\u201d) and use actual consumption figures rather than the \u201cinput-adjusted\u201d nonsense, the trend in non-fossil sources looks like this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I can\u2019t comment on his substack because you have to be a subscriber, but I invite him to come here and discuss this question. If anyone knows him, could you please pass this invitation on to him?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

On a related subject, since I had the new BP data in front of me, I thought I\u2019d take a look at the capacity factor for solar installations in various countries. The \u201ccapacity factor\u201d is the ratio of the actual energy generation from a power source to the \u201cnameplate\u201d amount it generates at full power. For fossil and nuclear, this is on the order of 90% plus, meaning it generates full power about 90% of the time. Here are the capacity factors for grid-scale solar power by country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5. Solar capacity factors by country.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enjoy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, it\u2019s Sunday, my day off from house maintenance and endless mowing. Went to the coast this morning with the Gorgeous Ex-Fianc\u00e9e. The Pacific was pacific indeed today\u2014no waves, hardly a breath of wind. And as soon as I wrap up this post, gonna watch some b\u00e9isbol, Giants vs. Mets. Life is good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With wishes that you all have a life full of wonder,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

w.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Next, his \u201cnon-fossil sources\u201d (hydro, nuclear, wind, biofuels, solar, geothermal, other) only total 7.5% of total energy, not 18%.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":265288,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691820005,691818228,691818154,691818130,691820587,691820744,691820745],"class_list":{"0":"post-265268","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-bp","9":"tag-fossil-fuels","10":"tag-net-zero","11":"tag-renewables","12":"tag-solar-and-wind","13":"tag-statistical-review-of-world-energy","14":"tag-traditional-biomass","16":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0shutterstock_485230399.jpg?fit=2400%2C1500&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-170w","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":249099,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=249099","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":0},"title":"World Energy Data Confirms Fossil Fuels Will Dominate Future Global Energy Use","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/22\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The\u00a0government leaders of the U.S., EU and UK can\u2019t seem to\u00a0bring themselves to\u00a0acknowledge that global energy outcomes regarding the world\u2019s future energy growth, fuel use as well as emissions growth is out of their control and has been for years.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-926.png?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-926.png?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-926.png?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-926.png?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/image-926.png?fit=1200%2C549&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264198,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264198","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":1},"title":"BP Energy Review\u00a02022","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/27\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Nevertheless, the spreadsheets still look the same, and we can ignore a lot of the fluff published in the EI report, as the chart below tells us all we really need to know","rel":"","context":"In \"Net zero\"","block_context":{"text":"Net zero","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=net-zero"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0SFWOJ472VFPU5Z2YZ2P4YJL25A.jpg?fit=1200%2C829&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0SFWOJ472VFPU5Z2YZ2P4YJL25A.jpg?fit=1200%2C829&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0SFWOJ472VFPU5Z2YZ2P4YJL25A.jpg?fit=1200%2C829&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0SFWOJ472VFPU5Z2YZ2P4YJL25A.jpg?fit=1200%2C829&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0SFWOJ472VFPU5Z2YZ2P4YJL25A.jpg?fit=1200%2C829&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264362,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264362","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":2},"title":"Record Renewables Growth Fails To Cut Global Fossil Fuel Share","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/28\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Record increases in solar and wind installations in 2022 failed to cut into the massive 82% share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption amid turbulent energy markets and energy security concerns, the annual Statistical Review of World Energy showed on Monday.","rel":"","context":"In \"CO2\"","block_context":{"text":"CO2","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=co2"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0f3b0dbf159a2eca87073737d01ed4120.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0f3b0dbf159a2eca87073737d01ed4120.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0f3b0dbf159a2eca87073737d01ed4120.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0f3b0dbf159a2eca87073737d01ed4120.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0f3b0dbf159a2eca87073737d01ed4120.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":334232,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=334232","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":3},"title":"BP (Energy Institute) Energy Review\u00a02023","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/23\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"CO2 emissions are up 1.6% year-on-year Fossil fuel consumption is also up, by 1.5% Primary energy consumption up 2.0% Wind and solar power only account for 6.0% of total energy, up from 5.3% in 2022","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/zslide-16-1024.webp?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/zslide-16-1024.webp?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/zslide-16-1024.webp?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/zslide-16-1024.webp?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":335023,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=335023","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":4},"title":"This Energy Transition Thing Really Is Not Happening","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/28\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"From reading the left-wing media, you know (or think you know) that there is an energy \u201ctransition\u201d going on. This is something that must happen as a matter of urgent necessity. Vast government subsidies are being disbursed to assure its rapid success. Fossil fuels are rapidly on the way out,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"coal\"","block_context":{"text":"coal","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=coal"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0Screenshot2024-06-25at9.31.24PM-1.png?fit=1158%2C1028&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0Screenshot2024-06-25at9.31.24PM-1.png?fit=1158%2C1028&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0Screenshot2024-06-25at9.31.24PM-1.png?fit=1158%2C1028&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0Screenshot2024-06-25at9.31.24PM-1.png?fit=1158%2C1028&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/0Screenshot2024-06-25at9.31.24PM-1.png?fit=1158%2C1028&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":264888,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264888","url_meta":{"origin":265268,"position":5},"title":"World Now Wasting $1 Trillion Or More Per Year Investing In Useless “Renewables”","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"More than USD\u00a01.7\u00a0trillion is going to clean energy, including renewable power, nuclear, grids, storage, low-emission fuels, efficiency improvements and end-use renewables and electrification.","rel":"","context":"In \"1 Trillion\"","block_context":{"text":"1 Trillion","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=1-trillion"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0-throw-away-money.jpeg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0-throw-away-money.jpeg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0-throw-away-money.jpeg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0-throw-away-money.jpeg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/0-throw-away-money.jpeg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=265268"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":265290,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/265268\/revisions\/265290"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/265288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=265268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=265268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=265268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}