{"id":360924,"date":"2025-01-07T17:37:11","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T16:37:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360924"},"modified":"2025-01-07T17:37:13","modified_gmt":"2025-01-07T16:37:13","slug":"complacency-at-the-climate-change-committee","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360924","title":{"rendered":"Complacency at the Climate Change\u00a0Committee"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

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

From Climate Scepticism<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Mark Hodgson<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emma Pinchbeck\u2019s Net Zero Nirvana<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Listening to the PM programme on BBC radio 4 this evening, I was somewhat taken aback by an interview conducted by Evan Davis. His interviewee was Emma Pinchbeck, the recently appointed Chief Executive of the UK\u2019s Climate Change Committee (CCC). As Cliscep readers will know, the CCC is charged under the Climate Change Act (CCA) with monitoring the UK government\u2019s progress in moving the country to net zero, and it also produces \u201ccarbon budgets\u201d on a regular basis, with a view to guiding the government of the day in achieving its legally binding obligations under the CCA. The seventh carbon budget is due to be published next month, and I have already\u00a0written<\/a>\u00a0about the hell that it is likely to unleash on an unwitting UK public.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This evening the producers of PM, Radio 4\u2019s flagship evening news and current affairs programme, seem to have decided to conduct a gentle interview with Ms Pinchbeck and to allow her to get away with a number of statements which \u2013 while not actually untrue \u2013 when taken together provided what I consider to be a very misleading impression of the road to net zero. Perhaps as alarmingly, I think the whole interview demonstrated significant complacency on the part of the CCC, or at least on the part of its Chief Executive. I won\u2019t comment, by and large, on what annoyed me, save in one case where the misleading impression is just too significant for me to allow it to pass without comment. See how many statements you can find cause to disagree with. The interview is transcribed below (it starts just after 38 minutes in, here<\/a>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evan Davis (ED): Now, 2024 \u2013 the year just gone \u2013 was the first year ever that wind<\/strong> power in this country became the single biggest source of electricity, overtaking gas. In fact, it was barely even close: 82,000 Gwh of electric power wind-gnerated \u2013 82,000. 73,000GWh of gas-powered electricity. If you\u2019re interested in where our electricity comes from for 2024, the league table goes \u2013 wind, gas, and then some way behind, imports, via connectors overseas, often from France, and then British nuclear. Those four make up the vast bulk of our electricity. Incidentally, that\u2019s all about the generation of electricity. We also had some other figures today, on electric cars, and guess what? Britain overtook Germany last year to become Europe\u2019s biggest market for electric vehicles \u2013 382,000 battery-powered cars. That was up 20% on the year before. Germany had a massive fall, at a 27% fall last year. Let\u2019s just talk about electricity, and wind in particular, with Emma Pinchbeck, the Chief Executive now of the independent [sic] Climate Change Committee, which advises government on climate change plans and net zero. And Emma was also Chief Executive of Energy UK till she got this job. Emma, is wind now always going to be the biggest source of our power now it\u2019s sort of tipped over gas last year? Is that it now, for the foreseeable?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emma Pinchbeck (EP): That\u2019s a good question, about whether we\u2019ll see the same this year coming. What we do know is wind is going to be the dominant source of power in our electricity system over the next decades, and whilst there\u2019ll be some variation as the system changes, the story in the 2030s and beyond is that wind will be our big dominant source of electricity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ED: What do we do about the windless days? Now they, I mean, obviously, it\u2019s out in the sea [er, a lot of it isn\u2019t] isn\u2019t it, so I mean, how worried are you by the fact that it\u2019s just not a very reliable supply all year round?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EP: I\u2019m not very worried, but that\u2019s largely because the National Grid aren\u2019t very worried, and they\u2019re the people whose job it is to keep the lights on. And that\u2019s for a few reasons \u2013 firstly, wind in the time that I\u2019ve been working has become much more reliable, in the sense that the wind turbines are bigger; as you said they\u2019re out at sea, where there\u2019s a lot more wind; they tip over at the slightest breath of wind, and that means that they can come on in more conditions. Secondly, we\u2019ve got technologies available to complement and now, you mentioned gas, in the long run we\u2019ll have to carbonise [sic] gas from the system to complement wind, but also things like nuclear, storage, other energy technologies. And lastly we\u2019ve got smart technologies on the system now and better ability to predict things like weather patterns, which means we\u2019re more able to run all those technologies together across the system. And all of that combined means that wind isn\u2019t just good for climate change, in my current job, but in my last job, in the energy industry, when we were talking about it, it\u2019s the cheapest, best way of running the energy system overall, so having a clean energy system is now a secure and cheap energy system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ED: Yup. Tell me about that word \u201ccheap\u201d, because the one thing it doesn\u2019t seem is that electricity, I don\u2019t think you could say electricity is cheap, and I think we\u2019re paying perhaps more for it than most other countries. I think<\/strong> from the tables I\u2019ve seen, and it\u2019s often very difficult to compare with complicated rates and the like, but, I mean, when do we get this so-called cheap, cheap electricity from, you know, home-grown sources, and all the stuff that\u2019s been promised?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EP: Yeah, I\u2019m very aware that when I come on the radio and tell people that electricity is cheap, and that wind is cheap, at a time when the price cap is going up again, it might feel counter-intuitive or that I\u2019m simply making it up, but actually it\u2019s largely the difference between what you\u2019re paying on your bill, and the electricity at source in generation point is to do with policy choices and market design, and what the Committee have advised government to do is our top recommendation over the previous years, is to make electricity cheaper. And our primary recommendation within that is they move some of the policy costs put on electricity, off electricity, so around 20% of the price of electricity on the bill is, are, down to policy costs, and that ultimately is a political regulatory choice we would like to see changed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ED: And if you burn gas directly \u2013 you burn it in your heating, for example \u2013 you pay less tax on that, less environmental levy on that gas you burn directly than if a power generator burns gas and puts it into the electricity grid?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EP: Yes. And the energy market is complicated. We could also talk about the fact, for example, that electricity prices still track the gas price, which means that while gas has been at record levels, electricity costs have also gone up. But I suppose the overall message people should take away is these new technologies are cheap, renewable electricity is cheap, passing that on to consumers should be a priority of government, and it\u2019s certainly been a priority recommendation for the Committee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ED: Do you need subsidies to get people to put wind out into the ocean? I mean, are we still giving guaranteed prices, Contracts for Difference, I mean is it still effectively<\/strong> underpinned by some kind of subsidy?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

EP: Yes, we underpin it with a price guarantee from government through the Contract for Difference mechanism. Now, the good news about that is it operates as a sort of price control, in that when prices go above it and generators are making money, more money than expected, they pay back to government; when it goes underneat that, the government tops it up. The reason having a consistent price has helped for when you\u2019re building giant skyscraper-sized wind turbines out at sea, is a lot of the funders of that in construction think that it\u2019s still quite risky, and having a long-term business plan where you can talk to them about what the returns are like over twenty years helps them lock private inward investment. Overall, particularly through the period of the crisis those projects were paying back to the consumer, and of course having wind on the system avoids imported gas, which \u2013 particularly through the gas crisis \u2013 really helped with bills, and it, in the long <\/strong>run this should be a cheaper way of doing it even with the policy support in place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ED: All right. Emma Pinchbeck, from the Climate Change Committee, on that fact that wind is the biggest source of our electric power. Thank you for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I quite like Evan Davis as an interviewer. He\u2019s polite, clear (always a help when transcribing interviews) and pretty good generally at getting to the heart of an issue. However, I have to say that was a very soft interview, where in my opinion Emma Pinchbeck really should have been pushed a lot harder on many of her claims. I said at the outset that I would take issue only with one particularly egregious part of the interview, so I will \u2013 I will leave you, dear reader, if you are so minded, to comment below as to the bits that bothered you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For me, the spin put on the Contracts for Difference subsidies was the most annoying part of the interview. Emma Pinchbeck said that \u201c[o]verall, particularly through the period of the crisis those projects were paying back to the consumer\u2026<\/em>\u201d. Now I don\u2019t believe that is<\/strong> true. They paid back only<\/strong> in 2022. Overall<\/strong>, the wind energy companies have received, and continue to receive, massive taxpayer subsidies (by the way, I love the fact that she said projects were \u201cpaying back to the consumer\u201d<\/strong><\/em>, but that when payments went to the energy companies, they were paid by the government<\/strong>, not the consumer \u2013 where does she think the government gets its money from?). Great PR-speak. It\u2019s just like the way costs are never costs, but are always described as investments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As it happens, Net Zero Watch has today issued a press release about the Contracts for Difference scheme, and they say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026subsidies paid to renewables under the Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme hit new highs in 2024. The previous record, of just under \u00a32.3 billion, was set in 2020. That figure was surpassed in the last few weeks of the year, and, by the time the full year\u2019s data is available, the total is likely to hit \u00a32.4 billion\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/em>The Office for Budget Responsibility is expecting subsidies under several other schemes \u2013 the Renewables Obligation Scheme, the Capacity Market, and the Warm Home Discount \u2013 to also break records<\/a> in 2024\u201325.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The press release is accompanied by a graph, which demonstrates pretty conclusively that only in 2022 did the taxpayer receive a payment from the wind companies under the CfD scheme, and that the refund was less than the payments made to<\/strong> the wind companies in every other year. Worse than that, in most years, the taxpayer has shelled-out substantially more than that single years\u2019 paltry refund and those payments are now reaching record levels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One last point \u2013 at the end, when there was no time to pursue the issue further, the best she could do in answer to the question about why our electricity bills are so high, was to opine that in the long <\/strong>run this should<\/strong> be a cheaper way of doing it. That\u2019s hardly a ringing endorsement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Listening to the PM programme on BBC radio 4 this evening, I was somewhat taken aback by an interview conducted by Evan Davis. His interviewee was Emma Pinchbeck, the recently appointed Chief Executive of the UK\u2019s Climate Change Committee (CCC).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":360927,"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":[691823159,691823770,691832489,691818154,691832488],"class_list":{"0":"post-360924","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change-committee-ccc","9":"tag-emma-pinchbeck","10":"tag-gas-powered-electricity","11":"tag-net-zero","12":"tag-wind-power-2","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0Emma-Pinchbeck-EP.jpg?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1vTm","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":346275,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=346275","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":0},"title":"Emma Pinchbeck To Head Up\u00a0CCC","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"10\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Just what we need -\u00a0 a renewable lobbyist taking over at the Committee on Climate Change","rel":"","context":"In \"Committee on Climate Change\"","block_context":{"text":"Committee on Climate Change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=committee-on-climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Emma-Pinchbeck_Photo_2020-e1607070418890.webp?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Emma-Pinchbeck_Photo_2020-e1607070418890.webp?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Emma-Pinchbeck_Photo_2020-e1607070418890.webp?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Emma-Pinchbeck_Photo_2020-e1607070418890.webp?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0Emma-Pinchbeck_Photo_2020-e1607070418890.webp?fit=1200%2C846&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":348591,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=348591","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":1},"title":"Renewable Lobbyist Promoted Renewable\u00a0Energy!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"23\/10\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Emma Pinchbeck is now head of the Climate Change Committee. Six years ago, when she was Executive Director of Renewable UK, she proclaimed that CfDs would \u201csecure low-cost energy for consumers\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Change Committee (CCC)\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Change Committee (CCC)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change-committee-ccc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0EmmaPinchbeck.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0EmmaPinchbeck.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0EmmaPinchbeck.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0EmmaPinchbeck.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/0EmmaPinchbeck.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":204870,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=204870","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":2},"title":"BBC & The Green Lobby","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"18\/06\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"By Paul Homewood h\/t Joe Public One more example of BBC bias: This was the broadcast: https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/programmes\/m0015lr9 It is hardly surprising that the contributors were firmly anti-fossil fuels: James Murray \u2013 Editor Business Green magazine His job is to promote the green agenda and lobby for the renewable industry. That\u2019s\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0image-42.png?fit=787%2C448&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0image-42.png?fit=787%2C448&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0image-42.png?fit=787%2C448&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/06\/0image-42.png?fit=787%2C448&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":389945,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=389945","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":3},"title":"Pinchbeck\u2019s Soviet Solution","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"20\/07\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In some ways I pity Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart, who, on the\u00a0latest edition\u00a0of their\u00a0The Rest is Politics\u00a0podcast, have put themselves through an hour of Net Zero word soup from the new Climate Change Committee CEO Emma Pinchbeck.","rel":"","context":"In \"cheap renewables\"","block_context":{"text":"cheap renewables","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=cheap-renewables"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0Screenshot-2025-07-20-134847.png?fit=1200%2C560&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0Screenshot-2025-07-20-134847.png?fit=1200%2C560&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0Screenshot-2025-07-20-134847.png?fit=1200%2C560&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0Screenshot-2025-07-20-134847.png?fit=1200%2C560&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/0Screenshot-2025-07-20-134847.png?fit=1200%2C560&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368398,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368398","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":4},"title":"CCC\u2019s Carbon Budget Does Not Add\u00a0Up","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Overall the CCC\u2019s report seems to have less detail and technical input than previous budgets, and electricity supply is no exception. It recommends a capacity mix, for instance, but little insight into the implications for the grid. It has Emma Pinchbeck\u2019s fingerprints all over it, given her background as head\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Change Committee (CCC)\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Change Committee (CCC)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change-committee-ccc"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Corbis-RM-chemical-works-and-oil-refinery-1349x700-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C623&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Corbis-RM-chemical-works-and-oil-refinery-1349x700-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C623&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Corbis-RM-chemical-works-and-oil-refinery-1349x700-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C623&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Corbis-RM-chemical-works-and-oil-refinery-1349x700-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C623&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/0Corbis-RM-chemical-works-and-oil-refinery-1349x700-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C623&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":368143,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=368143","url_meta":{"origin":360924,"position":5},"title":"The Seventh Carbon\u00a0Budget","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"01\/03\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Seventh Carbon Budget, covering the period 2038 to 2042, has been well covered by the media, so you are probably aware of the major recommendations.","rel":"","context":"In \"ban on gas boilers\"","block_context":{"text":"ban on gas boilers","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=ban-on-gas-boilers"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/257ebaf06c40cf493803244410c72ff8.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/257ebaf06c40cf493803244410c72ff8.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/257ebaf06c40cf493803244410c72ff8.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/257ebaf06c40cf493803244410c72ff8.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/257ebaf06c40cf493803244410c72ff8.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360924","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=360924"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":360929,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360924\/revisions\/360929"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/360927"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=360924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=360924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=360924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}